[Page] [Page 3] BEfore the conveening of the nationall Assembly, indicted by his Majestie to be holden at Glasgow in Novem. 1638. The some-time pretended Bi­shops and Arch-bishops of this Kirk were cited publick­ly, throughout the Kirk of this Kingdome, to compeare before the said Assembly, for answering to a com­plaint given in against them to severall Presbyteries, and by the presbyteries, according to the order of the Kirk, referred to the generall Assembly. When the Assembly was conveened some of these sometime pretended Prelats, to wit, M ^r. Io. Spotswod, M ^r. Pa. Lyndsay, M ^r. Da. Lyndsay, M ^r. Io. Maxwell, M ^r. Wal. Whitefurd, M ^r. Tho. Sydserfe; in stead of their compearance, gave in a Declinatour and Protestati­on; which was presented by M ^r. Robert Hammiltoun Minister at Glasfurde; and was urged to be read in face of the Assembly. This their Declinatour and Protestation was made in name of all the Arch-bi­shops and Bishops within this Kingdome: as if it had been done with the knowledge and consent of all the rest: which is known to be false, and in name of others [Page 4] their adherents, whom yet we have found to be very few; and these either corrupted with bribes, terrified by threatnings, or circumveened with false informa­tions, as diverse of them with teares have acknow­ledged; and therefore have passed from their Decli­natour. They appoint it to be given in to his Maje­sties Commissioner, whom they do not decline; and crave it to be read in presence of the Assembly; whom they do decline as Iudges, not directing their speach to the Assembly it self, with respect and reverence, as legall formes require: Coram vobis excipiendo & opponendo, cum debita reverentia, or the like. They com­peare not personally, but appoint a Procurator. How­beit some of them were in the town where the As­sembly conveened; or within few miles, when their Declinatour and Protestation was given in. They might have presented themselves to sustaine the rea­sons of their Declinatour, or to cleare themselves some way of the offences laide to their charge in the libell, with Protestation that they adhered to their Declinatour, notwithstanding of their compearance. Protestantes in principio, medio, & fine praesentis compa­ritionis & oppositionis: quod per praesentem actum vel comparitionem, seu aliquem alium vel aliam quem vel quam facere contigerit in futurum, non intendimus nec volumus in vos tanquam in judicem competentem aliqua­liter consentiri. Practica Papiensis per Petrum de Ferra­riis in forma declinationis alicujus judicis. But he that doeth evil hateth the light.

The Assembly, having considered the Declina­tour and Protestation, found themselves Iudges, not­withstanding any thing was aleadged: which was [Page 5] then briefly answered; and now more amply for the justification of their proceedings.

They acknowledged that a generall Assembly, lawfully called, is a most necessare and effectuall meane, for removing distractions, and setling peace in the Kirk; and yet have they been the chief instru­ments to bereave the Kirk of this liberty: first by pro­rogations from time to time, at last by prorogation to no certaine time; that so the impediment of their advancement might be removed out of the way.

They acknowledge that his Majestie hath authori­ty by his prerogative royall to call Assemblies: as is acknowledged by the Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. and Parliament 1612. But withall they pro­fesse, that it is not lawfull to conveen, without his Royall consent and approbation, unlesse we will put ourselves in question to be called for sedition. Here, they flatter for their own private ends, or rather be­tray the cause of CHRIST. We acknowledge that the Prince, when he seeth cause, may convocat a ge­nerall Assembly; but we deny, that it is sedition to hold Assembly without his consent. The Christians for the space of 300. years held their Councels and Assemblies under the persecuting Emperours; and yet were not in so doing guilty of sedition. But it will be aledged, that the case is different, where there is a Christian Magistrate professing the same Religion. It is true, his consent should be sought ear­nestly: but if he be negligent or wilfully refuse, the Kirk may hold her Assemblies, if they finde necessity. For in this case he differeth not from the unbeleever. Paria sunt non apparere & non esse. The Papists, stand­ing [Page 6] for the Pops right to call generall Councels, yet mantaine, that if he doth not, nor will not convo­cate, they may conveen without him, or although he should oppose. See that professor of both the laws Antonius de Rosellis in his Monarchiae Part. 2. cap. 30. And in the third Part cap. 3. when the Pops Aposta­sie or Heresie is notorious, any faithfull man or sound Christian may convocate the Councell per vìamre­quisitionis, vel monitionis; non per viam citationis, vel authorizationis: by way of warning and requisition, not by way of citation or authorizing. But when they are conveened, quicun (que) ipsos vocasset, talem vocationem authoriz are possunt: whosoever called them together, they may authorize that calling. For it is not requi­site to the substance, that a superiour should call them together. This Professor lived under the Emperour Frederik the third, and ended his dayes in the year 1467. The Bishop of Spalato in his second book de Repub. Ecclesi. cap. 7. Num. 18. aledgeth to this pur­pose a passage out of Iacobus Almaynus; where he say­eth, that the eye seeing the bodie in danger may give warning to the rest of the members, that the bodie may defend and preserve it self. So any particulare Kirk, seeing the necessity of convocating a Councell may make manifest the necessity to other Kirks; & sic denunciative congregare, non autem praeceptive; and so convocate, not by precept or command, but by way of denunciation or warning. As after a Physician hath shewed to a man, what is necessarie for his pre­servation, he is bound to do it, not by vertue of the Physicians precept, but of the precept of the divine and naturall law. This Iacobus Almain was a Sorbo­nist [Page 7] Professor, about the year 1510. The ground of the Kirks right is laid down by the Councell of Con­stance. Concilium generale potestatem a Christo immedi­ate habet. The generall Councell hath power imme­diatly from Christ. See Antonius de Rosellis in the part above-cited. What we have aledged for generall Councels holdeth more firmly for nationall and provinciall: seeing they are more necessary then the generall. In former times, Primats convocated natio­nall, and Metropolitans provinciall Councels, with­out seeking a particular grant from Princes to every meeting. For the Canons of Councels appointed such meetings to be kept. A tacit consent of Princes was sufficient. And this tacit consent was collected by their grant of liberty to professe Religion, and submitting their scepters to the scepter of CHRIST. In granting liberty of Religion they granted libertie to hold Synods, no lesse then weekly meetings of con­gregations to divine service. That French Catholick who wrot that treatise delibertate ecclesiastica in defence of the Venetians writeth to the same sense. Imperato­res cum libertatem Religionis edictis suis Ecclesiae conces­serunt, simul jus libere cogendi synodos illis attribuisse. Nam cultus Christiani haec pars est prorsus necessaria & [...]. So it was answered in the Assembly holden in December anno 1561. to some Courteours. Take from us the freedome of Assemblies, and take from us the Evangel. For without Assemblies how shall good order and unitie in doctrine be keeped. Seeing then Assemblies are so necessare, and CHRIST hath provided for all ne­cessaries to his Kirk, and promised his presence where but few are conveened in his name, the Christian [Page 8] Prince cannot deprive the Kirk of this liberty. Nei­ther is this Kirk deprived of liberty to hold her As­semblies by any law or act of Parliament, incase the Prince will not indict time and place. Our Kirk had liberty to hold Assemblies, and to appoint time and place till the year 1592. and yet were not the Assem­blies called in question for sedition. The Assemblies were frequented by men of credite in Court about the King and his Regents. Some were authorized with commission from them from time to time to re­paire to the same. Commissioners have been directed from the Parliament to confer with the Commissio­ners appointed by the Assembly, concerning Eccle­siasticall affairs. Appellations of laick patrons were ordained by act of Parliament to end and take decisi­on at the generall Assembly. Superintendents and ti­tulars of prelacies were ordained by act of Parlia­ment, to be called before the generall Assembly, and to be deprived, incase they were found Hereticall in doctrine. The acts ratifying the jurisdiction of the Kirk, namely the act Iames 6. Par. 6. cap. 69. Ratifi­eth consequently the generall Assemblies, where all jurisdiction is ordered, and censures sometimes ex­erced. The Parliament holden anno 1592. did not grant liberty to hold Assemblies, as if the Kirk had not had such liberty before, but ratified her former liberty to hold Assemblies yearly, or oftner pro re na­ta, and to appoint time and place for the next Assem­bly by themselves, incase his Majestie or his Com­missioner were not present in the town. But if any of them were present, it was provided, that they should appoint time and place. This provision gave not a [Page 9] privative power to his Majestie to refuse a generall Assembly, so long as he pleased, (for then the liberty of holding generall Assemblies could not be said to have been ratified) but only a priviledge or preroga­tive to appoint time and place for the yearly Assem­bly. The act of Parliament 1612. which they aledge in their Declinatour, acknowledgeth the indiction of time and place to appertaine to his Majestie, but doth not give a privative power to frustrate the Kirk of her yearly Assemblies if he please; which were ratified before, but that being presupposed, bindeth him to ap­point time and place. If they will infer, that it is sedi­tion to conveen an Assembly a any time, if the Prince will not indict time and place, in respect of that act of Parliament, they must remember that the act 1612. was only a ratification of the act of their pretended and null Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. the nul­lity whereof hath been made evident at the last As­sembly: and so they bewray their treacherie against CHRIST and his Kirk, and for consenting to the ra­tification of such a Declaration in Parliament ought to be severly punished, suppose there were no other offence to be laid to their charge. The yearly Assem­blies were a great impediment to their course: there­fore that liberty must not endure any longer. But for reverence of the honourable Estates, we make the best construction we can. Howsoever, the Kirk may lawfully hold her Assemblies, howbeit there were no act of Parliament, and the Prince (we speak in the general) refusing to indict time and place, the necessity of the Kirk being urgent is to be suspected of disaf­fection to Religion notwithstanding of his externall [Page 10] profession. Error, cui non resistitur, approbatur, & ve­ritas cum minimè defensatur, opprimitur. Negligere, quippe, cum possis, deturbare perversos, nihil aliud est quam fovere. Dist. 83. Can. Error. The Reader may finde more to our purpose in the reasons alreadie printed for holding generall Assemblies.

Howbeit the Assembly holden at Glasgow in No­vember 1638. was indicted by his Majestie, and they acknowledge that it was indicted by lawfull au­thorite, yet they hold the Assembly it self most un­lawfull and unorderly, in sundrie respects, and their proceedings void and null in law, for the causes and reasons following: which wee trust shall prove fri­volous.

Their first exception is taken from the time of e­lection of the Commissioners to the Assembly. That they were chosen by the Presbyteries before the Presbyteries were authorized to make election, in respect his Majesties warrant, to indict the Assembly was not published, till the 22. of September follow­ing. The election of Commissioners is ever in the li­bertie of the Presbyteries, when there is apparant oc­casion of an Assembly, as at this time they were put in full expectation both of a Parliament and Assem­bly: And there was need of timous election, that the Commissioners might have the longer time to pre­pare themselves for the matters of importance, which were to bee treated. The Barrons and free-holders make choise of their Commissioners to voice in Par­liament yearly, howbeit no Parliament bee indicted. They themselves procured Commissioners to bee chosen in sundrie parts Anno 1617. before the Assem­bly [Page 11] was indicted upon the fourth of November to be holden at S ^t. Andrews the 25 of that infant; upon a report that his Majesty would have a generall Assem­bly, and the five articles considered: but would not appoint the time or place, till the Commissioners were chosen. Their drift was to hold or not hold Assembly, as they should finde the Commissioners which were chosen, would for the most part serve their turn. But what need wee to insist upon this point, seeing there was no Commissions produced at the last Assembly, which were of date before the 22. of September the time of indiction. The Table, say they, by their usurped authority did give order, and direction for all Presbyteries to elect Commissio­ners, and to keep a fast upon the 16 of September. These whom they miscall, the Table did not com­mand or charge the presbyteries to elect or fast; but because of the expectation we had of an Assembly, in­vited them to seek Gods blessing with fasting, both to the election of Commissioners, and proceedings of the Assembly: and because we had been out of use these many years of Assemblies rightly constitute, sent to them their best informations and caveats.

They except next against the Commissioners them­selves: for if the Assembly be not constitute of such members as are requisite to make up such a bodie, it cannot be acknowledged for a lawfull and free As­sembly. But how prove they Commissioners ad­mitted to be members of this Assembly, not to bee such as are requisit to make up such a bodie.

First, they alledge that the most part, at least of the Clergie, conveened at this Assembly, are ipso facto de­prived, [Page 12] and their places voide, as if they were naturally dead; because they have never in presence of the Arch­bishop, Bishop, Superintendent, or Commissioner of the Province or Dyocie, subscribed the articles of Religion extant in the acts of Parliament, nor given their oath for acknowledging our Soveraigne Lords Autho­ritie, nor have read their testimoniall thereupon, and the confession in their parosh Kirks after their returne; as they are bound by act of Parliament, Anno 1572. that whereas they bee bound by act of Parliament, Anno 1606. to maintaine the Kings honour, dignitie, and prerogative Royall, to with stand all persons, power, or estates, that shall impugne or impaire the same, and at their admission were obliged to performe this duetie of their alleageance, and to testifie in their conscience that the King is suppreme governour as well in matters spirituall, and ecclesiasticall, as temporall, according to the act of Parliament 1612. Yet notwithstanding his Majestie having ordained by act of Councell and Pro­clamation following thereupon, that all the Liedges should swear and subscribe the said Confession, together with a generall Band for defending his Majesties Person and Authoritie, against all enemies within or without the Realme, they have not only refused to subscribe the said Band and Confession, but in their Sermons and other speeches disswaded, deterred, and hindered, others to sub­scribe the same; and have publickly protested against the subscription thereof.

The answer is easie: The act of Parliament 1572. was never put in practise conforme to the ten­nour of it, and order there set down: or if put in practise, the practise, could not endure long: For [Page 13] Archbishops, Bishops, and Superindentents continued not long after. If there were any force in this reason, all the Assemblies of our Kirk since the abolition of Bi­shops, and Superintendents might be called in question; and wee have had no lawfull ministers. Yea, their own pretended Assemblies did consist of many, who could not produce a testimoniall of their oath and confession conforme to the tenour of that act. Lastly, the substance of that act hath been keeped conforme to the later acts made thereanent, and none of the Ministers conveened at the last Assembly, but have subscribed both the confession of Faith, and Band for maintenance of the Kings authority, either of late, when the Covenant was subscribed, or before when they past their degrees in Schooles, or upon some other occasion. But what suppose that act were yet in force that they had neglected to take their oath, and were therefore deprived ipso facto of their bene­fice and ecclesiasticall living, yet it followeth not that they are deprived of their office, or can be, un­lesse they wilfully refuse to subscribe, and take their oath to acknowledge the Kings authoritie. It is to be observed, that that act was made when some stood for the Kings Mother, and would not acknowledge the King for Soveraigne during her life. As for the promise made in Parliament by the Estates, Anno 1606. have they failed in performance, or the Sub­jects whom they represented? Have they not in the last Parliament ratified that act. As to the act for the oath of supremacie An. 1612. it concerneth only such as were to be presented to any benefice, and not every Minister. That act was a ratification of the act of Glas­gow [Page 14] are altered in the act of Parliament, and in place of these words, Conservation and purgation of Religion, are put in, Supreme governour as well in matters spiri­tuall and ecclesiasticall as temporall, which words were avoided in the same oath, when the conclusions were agreed upon at Leeth, Anno 1572. Howbeit they then drew up a plate-forme of policie near to the English, and put in the words, Conservation and purgation of Re­ligion, which are used in the confession of Faith extant in the acts of parliament. So they have abused their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow. But what have the Commissioners done contrare to these acts, oathes, or promises? They have refused to subscribe the confession of Faith, and band enjoyned by the King and Councel, hindered others, and protested against the Proclamation. Might they not doe that, and not violate these acts? Doth the acts of the Kings pre­rogative binde them to subscribe any confession or band in whatsoever sense it shall please his Majestie to make? Or is it the meaning of the oath of supre­macie? The Estates, I am sure, never intended such a meaning. Both must be interpreted by the first con­fession of Faith, the act for the Kings oath at his Co­ronation, the declaration made in Parliament 1592. and second book of discipline Notwithstanding of the ratification of the former act concerning the Kings prerogative, and the act for the oath of im­supremacie, his Majestie behoved to have a grant of posing habits upon Kirk-men at the last Parliament which needed not, if he might have done it by ver­tue of these acts of Parliament, Anno 1606 and 1612. and yet that is a matter of lesse importance then to en­joyne [Page 15] subscription to a confession in another sense, then was received at the first, and second universall subscription. For now in the interpretation of the authoritie enjoyning subscription, the confession is made to consist with Episcopacie and other novations introduced since the fame was first received. Was there not reason then to refuse, to diswade others, and to protest against it? Moe reasons are to be found in the protestation it felf. Some Ministers were urged with subscription, and of those, some yeelded, who notwithstanding had place in the last Assembly. But what suppose all had protested and refused to sub­scribe as they were enjoyned by the Councel; that could not have disabled them to fit and voice in the Assembly, unlesse they had been legally convict be­fore of offence in so doing, and remained obstinate. But let the Reader here observe the decliners legerde­maine: They would seeme to be foreward for sub­scription of that confession which was enjoyned by the King and Councel, but challenge men for not sub­scribing the said Confession, that is the Confession extant in the acts of parliament: for of no other have they made mention before in their declinatour. They have vilipended the later confession and covenant in former times, and we doubt, notwithstanding of this taxing of others, that they will subscribe this confes­sion themselves, without their own limitations and acceptions; as the Doctours of Aberdene have done: but that perfidious men will subscribe any thing. And yet so impudent are they, that they will have other troubled for not subscribing contrar to the true sense, and meaning of the confession to make a partie, and new rent in this Kirk.

[Page 16] They alledge, that the Commissioners directed to this As­sembly have forefaulted his Majesties favour, in grant­ing this Assembly and the libertie to be members thereof, and were in the same estate and condition they were in be­fore his Majesties proclamation and royall pardon, because they are supposed to be of the number of these, that adher­ed to the last protestation, that it be lawfull for them, as at other times, so at this to hold Assembly, notwithstand­ing any impediment or prorogation in the contrare, they continue their meetings and tables discharged by autho­ritie, refuse to subscribe the Band according to his Ma­jesties and Councels command, for maintaining the Kings Person and authoritie, and protested against it, and insist­ed with the Liedges to subscribe the Band of mutuall de­fence against all persons whatsoever, that in their prote­station they declared Bishops and Arch-bishops to have no warrand for their office, to have no place or voice in Assembly, notwithstanding his Majestie had declared by proclamation, that they had voice in the Assembly to that effect, as they have constantly beene in use in all Assemblies where they were present, and therefore that it is a fearfull thing to conveen with these at this As­sembly, in respect of sundrie acts of Parliment, ordaining that none impugne the authority and diganitie of any of the three Estates, or procure innovation, or diminuti­on of their power and authoritie, under the paine of treason: and they arrogat to their meetings a Soveraigne authoritie to determine all questions and doubts that can a­rise contrare to the freedome of the Assembly, whither in the constitution and members thereof, or in the maters to be treated or manner of proceeding.

We answer first in generall, They forfaulted not [Page 17] his Majesties favour in granting an Assembly, for his Majestie did not recall the indiction of the time and place, for holding the Assembly, notwithstanding of all that is here alledged, and therefore they might still conveen to the place at the time appointed. As for the particular points alledged, we answer: Par­don was offered upon condition of acquiescing in the Kings declaration and offers. But pardon importeth offence, which is denyed: Therefore the condition of acquiescing could not bee admitted, and the of­fers in the declaration were not satisfactorie to their former protestations, complaints, supplications. The Assembly was granted absolutely without any condition, least his Majestie should leave in his sub­jects minds the least scruple, and for setling a certain peace. They protested that it should be lawfull for them, being authorized with lawfull commission, as at other times, when the urgent necessitie of the Kirk requireth, so in this exigence to assemble them­selves at the dyet appointed for the Assembly, not­withstanding of any impediment or prorogation in the contrary. Of the lawfulnesse to conveen in As­sembly, when there is urgent necessitie, we have set down some reasons already, and moe are extant in print, concerning that purpose. They had need to fear the danger of prorogation, both because the present case could not suffer delay, and doolefull experience have taught us, that prorogations from dyet to dyet ended at last in no dyet, whereby the Kirk was bereft of her libertie to hold yearly Assem­blies which they would now recover by this indi­ction, taking it for a re-entrie.

[Page 18] Their meetings or tables, as the adversaries call them, continued, because the cause continued, preferring supplications, giving in complaints, attendance upon gracious and satisfactory answers, and performance of the same, making Protestations when there was need; and yet in peaceable manner not in great com­panies, as at the beginning, for giving satisfaction to the Lords of Councel. They have offered to cleare the necessity of their meeting, and their carriage be­fore the Parliament to whom they have appealed. They have refused to subscribe the confession of faith again at the King and Councels command, after their late subscription, for the reasons already mentioned; and the band for mantainance of the Kings person and authority; because it is not the same in tennor with the old generall band subscribed anno 1590. The narrative is changed, some lines, designing the Papists and their adherents to be the partie threatning danger to Religion and the Kings person, are omitted, and no other partie designed in particular. So that the band may be used against the Covenanters themsel­ves, who have been taxed for disorders, disturbers of the peace of this Kirk and Kingdome, to the dan­ger of Religion, and prejudice of his Majesties autho­ritie, as they have complained in their Protestation. They continued in seeking subscriptions to the Co­venant till the holding of the Assembly, because of references to the Assembly. His Majesties Commis­sioner acquiesced in their explanation of the clause of mutuall defence, where they declared their mutuall defence of each of other was not for their own pri­vat quarrels, but only in defence of the true Religi­on, [Page 19] of the laws and liberties of this Kingdome, and of his Majesties person and authority in preservation of the same. What further can bee justly craved of them? Such as were pretended Bishops had no war­rand for voice in the generall Assembly, unlesse they be authorized with lawfull commission. The Super­intendents and Bishops presence of old was required more for their triall, then any need of their voice. But the Assemblies were wearied with complaints made upon them, and after many conferences and much disputation found their office unlawfull: which was never since approved by any pretended, let be lawfull Assembly. So the custome of old doth not serve such as only pretend or usurpe the same office. Nor are they capable, as Ministers, of any commissi­on from any Presbyterie, because they have deserted their flocks, and have no particular charge. For lop­pen Ministers, and usurping Prelats should have no place in the generall Assembly. The act of Parlia­ment discharging the impugning of any of the three Estates, or procuring the innovation or diminution of their power, was made in a troublesome time in the year 1584. was protested against when it was proclaimed, with other acts. That third Estate of Prelats, suffered innovation and diminution of their Estat within three years after by the act of annexation anno 1587. and in consideration of the great decay of the Ecclesiasticall Estate, these are the words of the 113. act following, the Commissioners of small Barrons and free-holders were declared to be members of the Parliament to sit upon the articles, and vote in pub­lick to supplie that decay. So there may be three [Page 20] Estates without the Ecclesiasticall, or Bishops. And the acts of Parliament following, were made by the Estates howbeit there were then no Bishops. Yea acts were made against Bishops as anno 1592. Howbeit Ministers were not Prelats, yet others who had the Prelacies voted as the third Estate. For it is in respect of their Barronies that such as have Prelacies, vote in Parliament, whither they be Ministers or not. By the act of Parliament 1597. Ministers provided to Bi­shopricks, Abbacies, Priories, were declared to have vote in Parliament, but without the knowledge of the Kirk. When it came to their knowledge, much opposition was made, none consented but upon con­ditions, which should have been insert in the act of Parliament: which was to be made for Ministers vote in Parliament. It is true that anno 1606. there was an act for restitution of the state of Bishops, but the Kirk repining: because the conditions were not insert in the act. And many Ministers subscribed a Protestation against the said act; yet was not the act 1584. renew­ed, nor Bishops restored to their spirituall estate, nor were there then any Bishops having any spirituall e­state whereunto they could be restored, nor was the whole third estate restored which before was empair­ed. For that third Estate consisteth of Abbots and Pryours, as well as Bishops. But how doth it follow, that because such as were provided to Bishopricks were restored to vote in Parliament, they were there­by restored to vote in the generall Assembly; who were not then, nor yet to this houre restored to the spirituall office of a Bishop. Or how is the third E­state impugned by calling them to censure or triall, [Page 21] seeing they consented to the act of their own preten­ded Assembly holden at Glasgow, whereby they are made lyable to the triall of the generall Assembly in their life and conversation, office, and benefice; as al­so by the tennour of the Kings Proclamation, and his Majesties Commissioners Declaration given in to the last Assembly; bearing expresly that all and e­very one of the Bishops and their successours shall be answerable to, and from time to time censurable by the generall Assembly. Their consenting to that same act of restitution is censurable, and a point of the li­bell given in against them. Can they not distinguish betwixt the state and the persons? Yea may not the generall Assembly or any particulare Minister im­pugne an Estate erected or restored in name of the Kirk without her consent, and to the prejudice of her liberties? It is a calumnie, that the meetings in Edin­burgh, which they call the tables, arrogat to them­selves soveraigne authority to determine all questi­ons and doubts, that can arise contraire to the free­dome of the Assembly: for they give only their best advice and opinion when it is asked, and call instantly for a rightly constitute and free Assembly to deter­mine doubts, and settle this Kirk in peace.

They alledge, the Presbyteries have losed their right, if they had any, to direct Commissioners to the generall Assemblie in so far, as they have deposed their Mode­rators appointed by their Bishops in their Synods to governe them, and elected others in their place contraire to the act of Glasgow 1610▪ and act of Parliament 1612. It is the hight of impudencie to call in question the right of Presbyteries to choose their own Commissioners, [Page 22] which they have ever had since their erection. The Assembly holden at Glasgow was a pretended Assem­bly and therefore any Presbyterie might from the beginning suspended obedience to the acts thereof, till it were declared null in a free generall Assembly, as it was at this last. The act of Parliament was only an act ratifying the act of that same pretended As­sembly, and by their own procurement, or rather another act, adding, omitting, altering the words and clauses of that act, and that with their knowledge and consent, if not by their device and procurement. And therefore are censured in this last Assembly for trans­gressing the caveats in this point as in many other. Put case no just exception might bee taken against the constitutions and proceedings of that Assembly: they fore-falted their right of appointing Moderators to Presbyteries at their Synods, because whatsoever power was granted to them was upon assurance, that we should have yearly, or at set times generall As­semblies, and that they should be lyable to their try­all which was not performed. And therefore Presby­teries have rather failled in that they returned not sooner to their former liberty. Beside this, the some­time pretended Prelats deserted the Synods, and ap­pointed substituts, who had not the same power to appoint Moderators. Many Moderators dimitted their office of their own accord, and then the Pres­byteries according to the act of Glasgow it self, had power to choose their own Moderator. Many Mode­rators remained still unchanged till the last Assem­bly. But put the case the Presbyteries had faulted in displaceing their Moderators, the Bishops substituts, [Page 23] doth it follow that they have fore-faulted their liber­tie of choosing Commissioners to the generall As­sembly. Every transgression deserveth censure or re­proof, but not deprivation from liberties.

They alledge next that the Ministers choosen Com­missoners to this Assembly had not a lawfull commission because the Ministers did associat to themselves a ruling Elder out of every Pariosh, who being ordinarly the Lord of the pariosh or man of greatest authority in the bounds, doth over-rule them both by their authority and number, being moe then the Ministers: of whom some being ordi­narly absent, and five or six, or so many of them put on the leit and removed, there remaine but a few Ministers to voice to the election, the Presbyteries former­ly never associating to themselves lay-elders in election of Commissioners to the generall Assembly, but only for their assistance in discipline and correction of manners, calling for them at such occasions as they stood in need of their Godly concurrence; whereas it was expresly provided by act of Assembly 1582. that they should be fewer in number then the Pastors. Likeas these 40. years and upwards they have not been called at all to Presbyteries, and by the act at Dundie 1597. whereby it is pretended, that Presbyte­ries have authority to send these lay-Commissioners, the only act authorizing Presbyteries to send Commissioners to the generall Assembly, it doth no way appeare that lay-el­ders had any hand in choosing of Commissioners. It is no new thing that Noblemen and Barrons have been choosen Elders. We finde that they have been Elders in the Elderships of particular congregations soon after the reformation. It were absurd to see the No­bility and gentrie best skilled for government set a­side, [Page 24] and the meaner sort not so well educat and able, to rule over them. The like may be said for Presby­teries. It is a needlesse feare, that they will over-rule the Presbyterie by their authority, Ministers mode­rating the meeting, and going before them in reason­ing and voicing. Nor can any such thing be laide to their charge in electing of Commissioners to this last Assembly. They can not overswey their Ministers by their number, if they will not be deficient to them­selves. If some Ministers be ordinarly absent, so may some Elders, and it hath fallen forth so usually, and doth so at the same time. That five or six Ministers being put on the leat and removed few will remaine, so five or six Elders being removed there will be moe Ministers to choose the elder. But what hinder­eth either the one or the other to voice to the electi­on of others (howbeit they be put on the leits) either before, or after their removell. The number of Mini­sters is to be considered according to the number of the Pariosh's, not according to their absence or pre­sence which is casuall, and for the most part there are moe Ministers in a Presbyterie, then can be of elders, taking but one out of a Pariosh. For in some burghes there are two or three, or foure, or eight Ministers. As for the answer to the doubt proponed in the Assembly holden in April 1583. In the booke of Policie agreed upon after reasoning and deliberation in many Assemblies: It was concluded there shall re­sort some Elders out of every parosh to the Presby­teries, which importeth that moe then one out of a Parosh may resort. Ministers were ordained to sub­scribe the book by acts of the Assembly Anno 1590. [Page 25] and 1591. And consequently after 1582. Next that act provideth that the proportion bee keeped in the fewer number; but there was never such a proporti­on determined, and till it be determined, it is as good, as no act. For otherwise it should be left to the Mini­sters of ever Presbyterie, to appoint what number they please. Thirdly, there is more reason for the con­clusion of the book of Policie made before, and ratifi­ed after that act: that as there is one Minister sent from every particular Kirk, so there should be likewise one ruling Elder at the least; for one Kirk hath no more priviledge than another. It was ordained in the gene­rall Assembly holden at Middleburgh Anno 1581. that every Eldership of the particular Kirkes send to the Classes (which wee call the Presbyterie) a Minister and an Elder, and from every Classes to the Synod, two Ministers and two Elders; So that the number was made equall, not only in presbyteries, but in Sy­nods also. And Bucerus in his book De gubernatione ecclesiae page 101. saith likewise, That there is a like number of Pastours and Elders sent to their provin­ciall Synods. It is false, that the ruling Elders were called to the Presbyteries only at such occasions as the Ministers stood in need of their godly concur­rance. For it was ordained by the book of Policy, that the common Eldership, that is the Presbytery, should consist of Pastours, Doctours, and ruling Elders, and so they were constitute at their first erection. By act of that same Assembly. April 1582. the Ministers are bound to exhort them to resort to the Presbyteries at all times, but for matters of weight to urge them strictly. And who doubteth but the election of [Page 26] Commissioners to the generall Assembly entrusted with the common affairs of the whole Kirk, is a mat­ter of weight. That the act made at Dundie Anno 1597. is the only act authorizing Presbyteries to send Commissioners to the generall Assembly, is as false. It hath been the continuall practise of our Kirk since the erection of Presbyteries, that Presbyteries direct Commissioners to the generall Assembly. In April 1582. We have this direction. It is not thought expedient that the Presbyterie be astricted to direct their Moderatour to the Assembly, but that they have libertie to choose such as they shall think meetest for the comfort of the Kirke. Whereby appeareth that order was esta­blished before, that Presbyteries direct their Com­missioners. The act 1597. then, did not first, or only authorize Presbyteries with this power, but only circumscribed the number: Meetest it was that Presbyteries should have this power, because they were ordinare Assemblies, had their power of ordinarie jurisdiction, admitting, deposing, excommu­nicating, and therefore had their meetings weekly, and were upon all occasions readie to direct Com­missioners. Neither is that act 1597. the only act au­thorizing Presbyteries to direct ruling Elders, or as they call them Lay-commissioners to the generall As­sembly: For seeing Presbyteries directed Ministers in Commission, the ruling Elders could be directed by none other after the erection of Presbyteries. It was ordained in Iune 1563. that every Superintendent cause warne the Shyres, Townes, and Parosh-kirks with­in his jurisdiction, to send their Commissioners to the generall Assembly. In Iuly 1568. it was ordained [Page 27] that Ministers and Commissioners of Shyres should be chosen by the Ministers and Gentle-men at the Sy­nod. After the erection of Presbyteries, wee finde them in the register books of the Assemblies to have been directed from Presbyteries, and specially Anno 1592. When the act of Parliament was made for rati­fication of the liberties of Assemblies, Synods, Pres­byteries, &c. And Iuly 1595. March 1595. And Anno 1596. For proofe likewise see in the Presbyte­rie books of Edinburgh, gentle-men directed in Com­mission with Ministers Anno 1593. and 1596. That the ruling Elders had hand in the election of Com­missioners when they sate in the Presbyteries appear­eth evidently: For in the Assembly holden in Iuly 1568. Where order was set down for choosing of Commissioners to the generall Assembly with po­wer to vote, it was ordained, that Ministers and Com­missioners of Shyrs bee chosen at the Synodall convention with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentle-men, meaning ruling Elders. And there­fore when the Presbyteries were created, and had the power to direct Commissioners, Ministers, and Elders, could not bee chosen, but in like manner by Ministers and Elders common consent. Such like when the act 1597. ordained that every Presbyterie direct no moe Ministers than three, and but one in name of the Barons: It is presupposed, that Presby­teries directed them before, but only defineth the number. It cannot bee meant that Ministers shall choose Ministers, and the Gentle-men Elders one in name of the Barons, or that Ministers shall choose both Ministers and Barons, nor were it reasonble. [Page 28] But it is said of both alike, that they shall bee directed from the Presbyterie. By the booke of Policie the ruling Elders office and power, is to hold all sorts of Assemblies, Presbyterial, Synodall, nationall, with the Pastours and Doctours, for establishing good order and execution of discipline, to treat of things concer­ning the Kirk, to choose a Moderatour with common consent, to send forth visitours for the bounds with­in their jurisdiction, in the Presbyteriall meetings, to make constitutions for decent order in their par­ticular Kirks without prejudice of the rules set down by provinciall or generall Assemblies, to excommu­nicat, to elect and depose ecclesiasticall office-bearers: For these are granted to Pastours, Doctours, and El­ders conjunctly; and as Ambrose writeth upon 1. Tim. 5. of the Elders in the primitive times, nothing was done without them. Vnde & Synagoga & postea eccle­sia, seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in ec­clesia. If they may have an hand in excommunicati­on, election and deposition of office-bearers choo­sing the Moderatour, making constitutions, establish good order, and generally to treat of all things which concerne the Kirke, ought they not to have an hand in election of Commissioners to the generall Assem­bly? Nay, rather in this than in any thing else. For Commissioners to the generall Assembly are intrust­ed with the common affairs of the whole Kirk, as hath been already said. They are called ruling El­ders and governours, not halfe or in part, but whole, and doth not the choosing of Commissioners belong to ruling and government: Ministers themselves doe not direct Commissioners, but as rulers. They al­ledge [Page 29] that ruling Elders sate not in Presbyteries these fourtie years and upwards: But the aspirers to prela­cies began the rent in our Kirke fourtie yeares since and upwards. No wonder then suppose that, with many other things went out of frame; so long as u­nitie and integrity continued, they continued. The times of division cannot prescribe against the good or­der established, and yet even after the act 1597. which was made in the yeare after division entered, wee finde in the Presbyterie books of Edinburgh February 1600. Commission given to some Ministers and gentle-men to the Assembly. And in the Catalogue of the Commissioners to the Assembly holden Anno 1601. Barons directed from Presbyteries. Ambrose complaineth in the place above-cited, that the con­junct government of Elders, which was first in the Ie­wish Kirk, and after in the Christian, was worne out of use, whither through sloughtfulnesse, or pride of the teachers, he cannot tell. Quod qua negligentia absoleverit, nescio; nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia, dum soli aliquid videri volunt. The causes of our Elders forebearing to resort to the Presbyteries may be diverse; partly, the pride of some Ministers, who would not encourage and countenance them, as they ought, and were directed by the Assembly; that governing by themselves alone, they might seeme some-what: partly, the unwillingnesse of others, loath that gentle-men should be made privie to the tri­als of their offences, as we have heard there by some of both sort, and fear there be some at this present of the same disposition; and partly the division and rent, which have vexed this Kirk these many yeares. But [Page 30] seeing there was never an ordinance to exclud them, and there can be no prescription against the word of God, whereunto this order is declared to bee conso­nant by act of Assembly holden in October 1582. And the book of policie, the imminent danger to Religion, constrained them to take their owne place againe: By the way I would demand these ministers, who are content they sit with them in the lowest and suppreme judicatorie, the Session and generall Assembly, why they repine at their association in Presbyteries and Synods: there can be no sufficient reason rendered; It was the order set down at the concluding the constant policie, and is the order observed in other Kirks. The elders exercise not their office fully but in the presby­terie, where ordinare jurisdiction is exercised, the po­wer of excommunication, deposition, admission, &c.

They except yet against the Ecclesiasticall persons, meaning, Ministers directed Commissioners to this Assembly, that they may be justly thought unworthie and uncapable of commission to a free and lawfull Assembly for their behaviour in times by-past. First, for that by their sedicious and railing Sermons and Pamphlets, they have wounded the Kings honour, and Soveraigne authoritie, and animate his Lieges to rebellion.

This is imputed to all, but not verified of any of the number, nor have they designed any person in particulare. It is sufficient that neither the Presby­teries sending, nor the Assembly admitting, doth know any such.

Next, they alledge they are knowne to bee such as have been either schismatically refractarie, and opposit to good order setled in Kirke or State, or having pro­mised, [Page 31] subscribed, and sworne obedience to theìr ordìnar, have never made conscience of their oath, or contrar to promise and practise, have resieled to the contempt of Authoritie, and disturbance of the Kirke, or such as are under the censure of the Kirke of Ireland, for their dis­obedience to order, or under censures of this Kirk or con­veened, at least deserving to bee conveened before their ordinar, or a lawfull generall Assembly: for transgres­sions, deserving deprivation. We know none schis­matically opposit to good order, unlesse they meane such as have opposed to their encroaching upon the liberties of the Kirk; and their shamelesse usurpation. An oath should not binde a man to iniquitie or im­pietie. The intrants did not understand what was the established order, from which wee have declined, nor foresee the intent of the Prelates, to bring in so many novations in Religion. The oath to the ordinar was exacted by vertue of an act of a null and preten­ded Assembly, and that ordinare was no lawfull or­dinare, but an usurper. These ordinaries have exacted also oath and subscription to articles of their own de­vising, and maintenance of their usurped authoritie, which is a point laid to their charge in their lybell. The censures inflicted (if there were any) upon three or foure Ministers, Scots-men, returning from Ireland to Scotland, were infflicted for adhering to our confession of Faith, which manifesteth them to be faithfull and constant members of this Kirke, and therefore fit to voice in her Assemblies. They gave satisfaction to the Assembly by their answers to the interrogatories proponed to them. Some of them were thrust out by themselves, before they went to Ireland. As for such as were under censure in [Page 32] this Kirk, wee know none, but such as were cen­sured by the then pretended Bishops in the court of high Commission, a judicatorie erected without consent of our Kirke, or of the Estates in Parliament, and discharged by Proclamation before they were chosen Commissioners. This is also a point of their lybell, the holding of such courts, and tyran­nicall domination in the same. Nor do we know any conveened before the pretended ordinare, for any of­fence which might make them uncapable of commis­sion. If any deserved to be conveened before them, or a lawfull generall Assembly, they should have been processed before, or warned to compeare before this Assembly: seeing a full and free Assembly was indicted. But we know none that hath deserved to be conveened for any transgression deserving reproofe, far lesse deprivation. The transgressions imputed are either falsly imputed to them, as the uttering of rash and unreverent speeches in their sermons against his Majesties Councel and their proceedings, reproving his Majesties laws and ordinances, using application in their sermons; not tending to edification, intrud­ing themselves in other mens charges and pulpits without calling and authoritie, pressing the people to subscribe their Covenant, or are no transgressions, as to proceed against Ministers to the censure of suspen­sion or deprivation in their Presbyteries, opponing to the subscribing of a Covenant offered by his Majestie, and allowed by the Councel, or holding of conventions, without his Majesties knowledge and consent; seeing the end was for supplications to his Majestie, complaints, and informations, and to prevent the great alterations in Religion, which [Page 33] were intended. They pretend that in charitie they forebeare to expresse the personall faults, of which too many of these who were directed Commis­sioners to this Assembly are guilty. They have learned to calumniate boldly, upon hope that some­what will stick in mens mindes. This generall impu­tation is more uncharitable, then if they had designed the persons and expressed the faults in particular. But they cannot otherwise ease their own vindictive spirits. In the meane time the Commissions are va­lide, suppose afterward they should prove them to be such as they alledge: and we will not be too credu­lous, namely when men declared infamous do calum­niate. They except next against laymens decisive voices. It standeth not with reason, Scripture nor antiqui­tie, say they, that laymen should be authorized by Mi­nisters to have decisive voices in a generall Assemblie. That in the act of Dundie 1597. whereby those Elders pretend to have this place, there is no warrant expressed for them to deliberat and determine. So by laymen, they meane our ruling Elders, who are not meer lay­men but office bearers in the Kirk, and are called in the book of Policie Ecclesiasticall persons. Next, ob­serve, that they except not only against the Assembly holden last at Glasgow, but also against all the Assem­blies holden since the reformation. For the Elders have had power to voice in Assemblies from the be­ginning. And the order of choosing Commissioners with power to voice was set down first anno 1568. among which are the Gentlemen Commissioners from shyres. There was no need therefore to expresse the act 1597. which was concluded before [Page 34] anno 1568. the 7. chap. of the book of Policie, and continually practised since the reformation. The ge­nerall Assembly is called in the book of Policie, the generall Eldership of the Kirk. If their reason were good, Ministers have no warrand by that act 1597. to voice in the generall Assembly. For there is no ex­presse mention in that act of Ministers power to deli­berate and determine. The truth is, that act doth not touch but presupposeth the power of both, and only defineth the number both of the Ministers and Bar­rons to be directed Commissioners from the Presby­terie to the Assembly. So you see, they professe plainly, they do not acknowledge any of our former Assemblies in the purest times, nor any other in time to come constitute after the like manner, nor the nati­onall Councels in other reformed Kirks, for lawfull Assemblies. It is sufficient for answer that this Assem­bly was constitute according to the acts of our Kirk, to which they ought to be subject: if there were no more, this one passage in their Declinatour deserveth condigne punishment to be inflicted upon them, that they dare so malapertly impunge the established or­der of our Kirk, because they are not able to answer to an Assembly rightly constitute. Yet howbeit they will not grant decisive voice to lay-men, they allow them presence and assistance. So will the Papists▪ But they will have them to be allowed and authorized by the prince, which condition is not required by the Papists. They allow that his Majestie in person or by his delegats, may see good order keeped, have a cheef hand in all deliberations and determinations, and may delegat by his soveraigne authority such lay-men as [Page 35] hee pleaseth to have definitive and decisive voice, without which delegation it is presumptuous intrusi­on upon the Pastorall charge. By the act 1597. which was made by their owne procurement to restraine the great number of Ministers directed from Presbyte­ries, to oppose to their corrupted courses, it was or­dained that Barons or gentlemen should bee nominat by the Presbyterie, and not by his Majestie, and have had after that decisive voice in Assemblies. How ma­ny noblemen and Barons, only called for by the kings letter and not delegat as Commissioners, have voiced at their owne pretended Assemblies, and helped to carie maters by pluralitie of voices? But now it ap­peareth that after they had served their turne with them to set them up they were to bide them a due hereafter.

Ite for as Laici, non est vobis Locus Icy.

Yea, they intreat the kings commissioners in the words uttered by the fathers at the councel of Chalcedō. Mitte for as superfluos. Send forth the superflous. That which was spoken to Clerks, and Monks, who came to trou­ble the Councel, because they had imbraced the er­rour of Eutyches, they apply to the ruling Elders, no­blemen, and gentlemen, chosen lawfully Commis­sioners to this Assembly. For such insolent and con­tumelious speeches, they ought to be severly cen­sured, howbeit there had been no libell given in a­gainst them. To the same purpose they alledge the direction given by Pulcheria, the Empresse to Strate­gus Commander or Captaine of Bythinia, to drive by force out of the Councel of Chalcedon, such Monks, Clerks, and Ley-men, as did but pester the Councel, [Page 36] and suffer none but such as the Bishops brought with them. This also was for avoyding of distur­bance. In the meane time you see that Lay-men not appointed by the Prince, but brought by the Bishops were allowed to be present at the Councell of Chal­cedon. But how agreeth that saying of Theodosius the younger, that it is unlawfull for him, that is not in the ranke of the most holy Bishops to meddle with Ecclesiasticall treaties and affaires? It seemeth to crosse that, which they granted before to his Maje­stie and his delegats. For how can he or they, if this be true, have a chief hand in all deliberations and determinations, or a decisive voice. Yea by this say­ing Ministers, or preaching Presbyters ought not to meddle with Ecclesiasticall affaires, for they are not set in the rank of Bishops. This saying of Theo­dosius is alledged by the Papists against the definitive voices of Emperours and Princes themselves. And therefore we may conjecture whereunto their course doth tend, notwithstanding of the faire shew they made a little before. But as for that saying of Theo­dosius extant in the Councell of Ephesus, Whittaker de conciliis proveth it to be forged, quia non habetur in antiquis exemplaribus, It is not extant in the old co­pies, and it is false in it self. For he did meddle. And howbeit Theodosius was not present himself at the Councell, yet he sent Candidianus, who informed him of their proceedings. Thirdly, the words are not rightly translated, for the words are not, the order or rank of Bishops, but, the catalogue of Bishops: meaning that none should meddle with the affaires and questions to bee treated in the Councell, but [Page 37] such as were sent from their Kirks, and were written up in the catalogue which their Bishops brought with them. This is observed by Iunius. For the same respect which Theodosius had, Martinus was moved, say they, to say at the Councell of Chalce­don, non esse suumsed Episcoporum tantum subscribere, that it was not his part, but the Bishops only to sub­scribe. How could they urge him to subscribe, if it belonged only to Bishops? This famous man Martine was an Abbot, or the father of many Monks. He refused to subscribe, because he favour­ed not the cause, but the errour of Eutyches another Monkish father. Alwayes we see what Assemblies they intended to have had, even just like the Popish; Bishops only having decisive voices, and no other Assembly shall wee have, if they can attaine to their intent. But to returne to the point. We let them understand our Assemblies are not to be ordered ac­cording to the patterne of these Monkish times. The question is, whither they will acknowledge this Assembly to bee constitute according to the con­stitutions and practise of our owne Kirke. But lest the Reader should conceive an errour to bee in this, that Lay-men should have decisive voice in Assemblies, wee will by the way stay a little upon this point. Their argument brought a­gainst it is Bellarmines, but it is naught. For if it bee intrusion upon the pastorall charge, the Prince can not authorize Lay-men to give decisive voice in Assemblies, which they granted before: for that were to intrude them into the pastorall charge. And by the same reason neither he [Page 38] nor his delegats can have decisive voice: but the truth is, it is no intrusion into that pastorall charge, which is proper to the Pastor, which is to preach the word publickly and minister the sacra­ments. But this is not the end of meeting in Assem­blies, but to root out Heresies, redresse abuses, and de­liberate upon the common affaires, which is not the proper charge of Pastors, but common also to others endued with knowledge of the Scriptures; or as Do­ctor Willets saith, this office to be performed in Coun­cels; is common to the whole Kirk. If to feed be ta­ken more largely, and to open up the true sense of the Scripture, or to refute Heresies, or mend abuses be to feed, then others then Pastors may be said to feed in that large sense. Ministers in Assemblies do not feed as Pastours, but as delegat from their Kirks they take heed that no corruption in doctrine, nor abuse in manners creep in. But that meer lay-men, howbeit not ruling Elders or office-bearers in the Kirk, may have decisive voice in Councels, providing they be endued with gifts sufficient and be freely choosen by the Kirks of the bounds, where they are resident, is made evident by Scripture, reason and antiquity. In the Councell holden at Ierusalem act 15. not only the Apostles and elders, but also other brethren had de­cisive voice. There was much disputing v. 7. and the whole multitude keeped silence v. 12. whereby it ap­peareth that in the time of the disputation many be­side the Apostles and Elders spake. The Apostles, Elders and Brethren sent choosen men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to make known to them what was concluded and agreed upon in the Councell [Page 39] 23. and 25. And in common, the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, which importeth a decisive voice. Whereupon the Cardinall Arelatensis at the councell of Basile, ga­thered that others then Bishops should have decisive voices in Councells, unde apparet alios quam Episcopos in conciliis habuisse vocem decidentem. A Eneas Sylvius lib. 1. de concilio Basileensi. But the text beareth that others beside the Apostles and Elders wrote in their epistle, It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us. It seemeth these brethren were such as disputed and reasoned pro & contra upon the matter in hand' [...] and placet were the words used in giving definitive sentence in Councels. Next, there is reason for it. The nationall Councell or generall Assembly repre­senteth the whole Kirk of the nation in a most so­lemne manner. Therefore it should consist of men of all ranks, and not of Clergie men only. Bellarmine compareth generall Councels to a Parliament. But persons of all sorts and ranks, by the persons repre­senting their Estate, have voice in the Parliament. Naturall equity requireth the like to be observed in nationall Councels. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tra­ctari & approbari debet, That which concerneth all should be handled and approved by all. But matters of Faith and manners the subject, whereupon natio­nall Assemblies do treat are common and concerne all, the Laitie as well as the Clergie. It is against rea­son that Ministers should lay a yock upon the people without their own consent and approbation. The Scripture is the only supreme judge of all contro­versies in religion: the Councell doth only interpret [Page 40] and point out the sense and meaning of the Scripture, which gift Lay-men may have. Yea the judgement of one Lay-man agreeing with the Scripture is to be preferred before the judgement of a whole Councell contradicting the Scripture. And Gerson examinat. Doctr. Par. 1. sayeth, any learned man ought to op­pose to a whole Councell, if he perceive them to erre through malice or ignorance. Pastors are common­ly chosen to sit in Councels, because it is presumed that they have the greatest skill in Ecclesiasticall mat­ters. But it may fall out otherwise: for the gifts of knowledge and spirituall wisedome are not precisely tied to them. Nazianzen detested the Synods where rude and ignorant Bishops, whereof there were many in his time, did vote. Merito illas Synodos detestabatur, in quibus Episcopi suffragia ferentes essent rustici, idi­otae, illiterati, nulla sacrarum literarum scientia praedi­ti, nec in rebus sacris exercitati, qui utique aequum judici­um ferre non possunt. Spalatensis. Lib. 7. cap. 3. Num. 29. Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensor pacis part. 2. cap. 20. taketh GOD to witnesse, that he knew many Priests and some Prelats who could not speak con­gruous latine: and because the most part of the Bi­shops and Priests had small skill in the Scriptures, he wisheth or adviseth a generall Councell to be filled up with others who were not Priests: generale Conci­lium etiam per non Sacerdotes integrari. Sic enim fece­runt Apostolicum senioribus. Before Luthers time scarce one Bishop of a thousand could reade latine. Sibran­dus de conciliis P. 44. It were absurde to sendigno­rant Pastors and often times ungodly to a Councell, and exclude learned Godly and wise-men.

[Page 41] The Bishop of Spalato saith, That it is not the title of a Bishop should give him the right of suffrage, and if he be unfit, his placet is ridiculous. l. 7. c. 3. num. 29. In his 7. book c. 3 num. 5. he proveth that Lay-men may vote in councel, for this reason because they may have the gift to expound or open up the meaning of the Scripture. Paulus etiam Laicos fideles agnovit posse & solere sacram Scripturam ex dono spiritus expli­care prophetae duo aut tres, &c: 1. Cor. 4. 29. As for practise in ancient times, notwithstanding of the pride of the Clergie and superstition prevailing, wee have proofe sufficient. Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus, epist. 81. Required a Councel, consisting not only of Bi­shops, but also Magistrats, and others in dignitie, that are learned in divine things, and to declare plainly what is their judgement. Isidorus Mercator, in his order of celebrating Councels, saith, Deinde ingrediantur & laici qui electione Concilij interesse meruerunt. Let lay-men enter, who by the choice of the Councel, merite to be present. Marcilius Patavinus, in the chapter above-cited, alledged this place for our purpose; and addeth, multo magis igitur literati & in lege divina peri­ti, quanquam non sacerdotes existant. The decrees of the second Councel of Orenge were subscribed by Lay-men of great dignitie, Laici etiam illustres & magnifici viri subscripserunt, Magd. Cent. 5. cap. 9. And in the Synod holden at Cullen. Anno 887. There were present religious Lay-men, with whose consent the decrees of that Councel were promulgat. At the Councel of Metz holden under Arnulphus were pre­sent many Earles, and other nobles, with other Lay-men, fearing God. In the beginning of the first chap. [Page 42] we have these words, Episcopi & Presbyteri & fideles Laici qui ante nos fuerunt juxta sacram Canonum authori­tatem saepius in Christi nomine convenientes, justiciam Dei statuerunt, & idcirco suis diebus pacem habuerunt. They tell us that therefore Fathers had peace in their dayes, when Lay-men conveened in Chists Name with the Clergie, and made righteous decrees. These Councels are alledged for our purpose by the Bishop of Spalato in the chapter above-mentioned. The Au­thour of the review of the Councel of Trent, a French Catholick, lib. 1. cap. 8. Maintaineth that from all antiquity Lay-men have had their place in Councels, not only to deliberat, but to determin also, & alledge­eth for his purpose not only act. 15. 23. But also ex­amples, specially of councels holden in France and Spaine. The French Synod holden An. 742. hath these words, By the advice of the Churchmen and Princes of the Realme, We have ordained, decreed, &c. saith Carloman, Duke and Prince of the French Pepin, a French Duke and Prince called another Synod at Soissons consist­ing of Church-men and some chief Lay-men of the Realme, with whom hee enacted some ecclesiasticall lawes, An. 744. The councel of Meaux, holden under Charles the second, An. 845. maketh mention of some other councels that consisted of clergie and lay-men, so were Earles & other godly laym-en, at the councel holden at Pistis, a town upon the river of Seyn, Anno 963. Both Clergie & lay-men flocked in great troups to the councel at Tribur in France and at the end of that councel, we have these words, This holy subscripti­on was confirmed and fairly approved by the reverend pro­fession and worthie answers of the Priests, Deacons, and [Page 43] Lay-nobilitie. At the famous councel of Constance were present 24. Dukes, 140. Earles, divers delegat from cities and corporations, divers learned Law­yers, divers Burgesses of Universities. At the first councel of Pisa there were the delegats of Universi­ties, the Proctours of cities, and some Doctours in law, to the number of 400. All of whom (saith the apologie of that councel) treating of points in divinity, when they had deposed the two Antipopes that contended for the Popedome, and elected Alexander the fifth, made many good ordinances in the Kirk of God. So at the se­cond councel of Pisa, there were also the delegats of Universities `with sundrie Doctors in law, and other men in great aboundance, well skilled in maters both divine and humane. Many other Synods or councels are cited in that eight chapter, whereunto we refer the Reader. As for the Popish distinction of consenting and defining, or determining; that Lay-men consented but did not define or determine: the reader may finde expressions in the contrare in the examples above-ci­ted. Whittaker proveth that the Bishops themselves subscribed as consenting: How ridiculous it is to grant them power to debate upon or discusse any que­stion, and consent or dissent to the determination, ei­ther on the one side, or other, & not to determin what is that lesse? For if the Clergie men have determined, and the Laymen consent not, their determination is frustrat. Right judgement cannot be given, but after the discussing of the cause, saith the Bishop of Spalato in the chapter above-cited. Neither doth he admit some of the councel to bee judges, and others to bee disputers only. Now seeing meere Lay-men orderly [Page 44] elected have had, and ought to have decisive voice in councels, much more ruling Elders, seeing they are chosen out of the laity as fittest to governe: And if the fittest bee not chosen, it is an abuse or neglect which should be amended. The Elders at the coun­cel of Ierusalem were not only preachers, but rulers; for the name was common to both, and both are comprehended, where the sense distinguisheth not. If Bilson Pag. 180. comprehend Deacons under the name of Elders; with greater reason may we the ru­ling Elders: and so doe our Divines, Iunius, Alste­dius, and others disputing upon this subject. Yea, Zwinglius in his Epistles, taketh here Elders only for the ruling Elders. Alwayes seeing the constitutions of the Eldership was directed from the Iewish kirk, the Kirk of Ierusalem was in this, as in many other things, a paterne to the rest. This digression was necessarie, howbeit their acception toucheth not the point in question to wit, Whither this last Assembly be con­stitute according to the acts, and established order of our Kirk.

They alledge, That if the pretended Commissioners, both Lay and Ecclesiastick, were for none other cause de­clinable, yet ought they to bee declined, because the most part, if not all the Commissioners directed to this meeting, have precondemned episcopall government, have condem­ned, at least suspended obedience to the acts of the generall Assembly and Parliament: concerning the five articles of Perth, have approved their Covenant, as most necessa­rie to bee imbraced of all in this Kingdome, and not only have given judgement of these things before hand, but by most solemne oathes bound themselves to defend and stand [Page 45] to the same, as doth appear by their Covenant, petitions, potestations, pamphlets, lybels, and sermons; for a judge probably suspect, may be declined: and of all probabilities the most pregnant, is, when the judge before he come to judgement, doth give sentence of the things judged. Hi­theretill they have declined the Commissioners as incompetent judges, now they decline them as su­spect: which is recusatio judicis suspecti.

Suppose it were true, what is here alledged of all or the most part, yet can they not bee set, for as it was answered at the Synod of Dort, to the Arminians, us­ing the like exception, that by this reason Arrius, Ne­storius, Eutyches, and other like Hereticks, could not have been condemned justly in the councels of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon: because the orthodox teachers who had impungned their doctrine before, sate as judges upon their doctrine, Alexander Bishop of Al­exandria impugned the hereticall opinion of Arrius before the Councel of Nice was convocat, and yet sate as judge at the councel of Nice upon Arrius. Did not Cyrillus sit in the Councel of Ephesus upon the Nestorians? howbeit he had impugned their doctrine before. In Hassia when some defended the Vbiqui­tars errour, they were condemned in a generall Sy­nod by such as had impugned their errours before, notwithstanding of the same exception. It is no new thing, but accustomed in the Kirke of God at all times, that when any errour did spring up, faithfull Pastours did timeously oppose both by word and writ: least it should spread, and infect the whole body: and yet did not therefore forefault their right in giving their voices in the Synods where [Page 46] these errours were condemned. The Divins of Hassa defyed the Ariminians to give one example of a law­full Synod that ever did the like. Next, suppose they had all precondemned episcopall government and the five articles of Perth, they had condemned, but that which was condemned before by our Kirk, and never retreated by any lawfull Synod. Thirdly, the ac­knowledgement of episcopall government and pra­ctise of the five articles were not absolutely condem­ned by the Covenant. But the acknowledgement of the one, and practise of the other, was suspended till the tryall of a free and lawfull generall Assembly, whither they were contrar to the confession of Faith and abjured by it, for the satisfaction of some, who in other respects did not allow of them; and being found to be abjured by the confession of Faith, as they are found and cleared to be at the last Assembly, they are bound by oath to stand to the confession of Faith in all the points of it. Fourthly, the Commis­sioners conveened, did not judicially condemne be­fore, but according to their severall places and stati­ons, they gave warning of the novations entered, in, which hindered them not to alter their minde, if they had heard any thing to convince them of the contrar at meeting with others in the Assembly. The exam­ples alledged are to small purpose. Our reformers protested against the Councel of Trent, not only be­cause Pope Leo the tenth had precondemned Luthers doctrine by his Bull dated the eight of Iune 1520. and Paul the third his successor, likewise by his Bull dated in August 1535. but also declared the intention of their appointing to convocat that councel was to root out [Page 47] that new sprung up heresie. And as it was answered to the Arminians, that councel was not a free councel. The Prelats and other members of that councel were sworne slaves to the Pope, and had power to deter­mine nothing but what pleased him to approve by his Nuncioe. Our first reformers would not be acknow­ledged for Doctours of the popish Kirk, and had made separation from them before. Maximus pa­triarch of Constantinople, refused to goe to the councel of Antioch, because he foresaw he would be constrain­ed to the deposition of Athanasius, Hosius of Corduba feared likewise their determinations: but it is one thing to refuse presence, where they feare ungodly deter­minations: another thing to decline the authoritie of a lawfull councel, when they are cited to answere a foule libell. It becommeth them to side with perse­cutours rather then Hosius, with Pope, Leo rather then Luther and other reformers, of whom some of them have spoken disdainfully. Next, there is difference between an inferiour Synod and the supreme. The councel of Antioch was not an oecumenicall councel, which was the supreme. The generall Assembly whereunto our Prelates were cited, is with us the su­preme: of which more in the answere to the next section.

Next they alledge, That all, if not the greatest part of the pretended Commissioners, have declared them­selves partie to the Arch-bishops and Bishops of this Kirk: for in that they declined the Bishops to be their judges as their partie, as their declinatours, petitions, declarations, and protestations doe beare, have they not simul & semel & ipso facto, declared themselves to be their parties par­tie, [Page 48] that is the Bishops? And have not only declined, but persecuted them, by calumnies and reproaches, invaded their persons, opposed and oppressed them by unlawfull combination: for the subscribing and swearing wherof they have by their own authoritie indicted fasts, have by the aid of the multitude entered in the Kirks of worthy men, usur­ped upon their charges, caused read the unlawfull Cove­nant, threatned or compelled some, otherwise unwilling to set their hand to it; processed, suspended, removed, obedient and worthie Ministers by the usurped authorite of their Table & Presbyteries, notwithstanding the defence of de­clinator & appellation was used by not a few in their Pres­byteries, intending by this means to disable them from be­ing Commissioners, and directly or indirectly caused their stipends to be keeped back, by which means not the least part of the subscribing Ministers hands hath been obtained to their Covenant. Seeing they have declared themselves partie, it can subsist with no law or reason that the same persons shall be both parties and Iudges.

We answer, they declined them as party, when they supplicated and complained upon them before the Lords of secret Councel. Was it reason that they should judge upon the complainers, or complaints made upon themselves? When they covenanted, they suspended only acknowledgement of their au­thority, till the tryall of a free generall Assembly: Calumnies and unjust reproaches we deny. None of the Commissioners have hithertils invaded their per­sons, nor have any of them been invaded by any o­ther, so farre as we know; But Master David Lynd­say by Boyes and servant women, when hee was come from his new Mattins and evensong, and as we [Page 49] use to say flagranti crimine. Their conbination against them was with reservation to triall. What fault was there in fasting and seeking Gods blessing to the acti­ons were in hands, all tending to reformation? where fore should people be hindred from striking Cove­nant with God and amongst themselves for the de­fence of Religion by the refusall of a perverse Mini­ster? These worthie Ministers processed, suspended, or removed were worthily censured by their Presby­teries for their Arminian, and Popish doctrine, vented both in privat and publick, to the endangering of many souls, or for their scandalous lives. Were these men fit to be Commissioners to the generall Assem­bly. To decline the Presbyterie as competent judges could not be admitted, nor to appeall to any but to a free generall Assembly. These men who declined the Presbyteries have declined the Assembly, whereby we may see upon what intent they did decline. That not the least part of the subscribing Ministers put to their hand to the Covenant for feare of keeping back their stipends, is a meer calumnie. Others were postponed not for not subscribing, but for neglecting their charge and wandering from their flocks. For all then that is here aledged, the Commissioners to this As­sembly might lawfully sit as judges to the complaint, or lybell given in against them; seeing they were chosen and authorized by their Presbyteries, with commission to deliberate and voice in this Assembly. Next, they were not judges in any particular or proper cause of their owne, but in a cause con­cerned the whole Kirk.

Therefore in making the Commissioners their par­tie, [Page 50] they make the whole Kirk of Scotland their party. For they had a free commission from all the Presby­teries, according to the order of our Kirk, to make up the representative of the whole body. How shall discipline be exerced, if such as are guilty shall reject Sessions, Presbyteries and Synods as party? but be­cause there may be some time partiality in inferior judicatories, they may be appealed from, but the su­preme judicatory of the Kirk, the generall Assembly can not be declined in a cause Ecclesiasticall and com­petent as party, without making the Kirk of Scotland party. The Arminians excepted against the Synod of Dort, that they were both judge and party, and therefore would not submit to their tryall. Our de­cliners have borrowed this buckler from them. But the answer made to them by the Divines at Dort may serve for answer to our decliners; to wit, that the Sy­nod did not consist of persons lying under any Ec­clesiasticall censure, that they cannot be called a par­tie, unlesse all the Belgick Kirks from whom the Commissioners were directed be taken for party. Repraesentant enim illis Ecclesias, quarum credentialibus instructi in hac Synodo comparuerunt. And if the Bel­gick Kirks be their party, they can not be reputed members of their Kirk, but must confesse they have made separation from them, say the Divines of Has­sia. There can be no lawfull exception taken against a Synod by the members of these Kirks which do con­stitute the Synod. Pars minor pars nova, debent stare judicio corporis repraesentati per Synodum, loquentem mandato, ore, & ex sensutotius corporis, say the Divines of Geneve. Consideration is to be had of times to [Page 51] come, least that such as are guilty shift the ordinary judicatories of Presbyteries and Synods, and a doore be opened to the entry of sects and heresies, say the Divines of Breme. In their own proper and peculiar cause no man can be both party and judge, but in a common and publick cause it may be say the Di­vines of Emden. In a word all the Divines at the Synod of Dort agreed upon these answers. We an­swer in the same manner. And the decliners know very well that the body of this Kirk which directed the Commissioners was sensible of their usurpation and oppression.

They make a tragicall outcry, that under pretence of summonds, the like whereof was never used, nor in the like manner, against the most haynous malefactor in the kingdome, they have devised, forged, invented and pub­lished a most infamous and scurrill libell, full of impu­dent lies and malicious calumnies, against the Archbishops and Bishops of this Kirk. Truely we hold them the greatest malefactors among us. As for the lybell, the most part may be gathered out of their own declina­tour, and is as evidently known to all sorts of peo­ple within the countrey, as that they are Bishops. So that it was questioned at the last Assembly, whither it was needfull to lead witnesses in points notorious and as well known as that the Sun shineth at noon­tide. Some personall offences were so well proven, that Commissioners of all ranks were ashamed of their prophanity and lewdnesse. Time served not to stay upon the triall of the rest, but if they be not silent, more will bee verified to their greater shame. If they had been innocent, no doubt they had compeared [Page 52] and adhearing to their declinatour insulted: but, how­beit none more impudent, they durst not face the As­sembly. They complaine that the table prescribed in certaine articles the order to be keeped in the cita­tion and publick reading of the lybell, according to which directions the lybell was read in sundry Kirks, and in Edinburgh in all the Kirks, notwithstanding of my Lord Commissioners command given to the Provest and Bailies to the contraire. None took up­on them to prescribe, but only to advise and informe what course should be keeped for citation in the surest and most legall manner. Seeing we have been these many years out of use of ordinar Assemblies, the course to be keeped could not be found out by e­very one till they were informed. Neither were there informations sent from the meetings at Edinburgh to any man, to the knowledge of the Assembly, but were private directions sent from hand to hand. Pub­lick reading of the lybell was needfull, not to make their enormities known to the people, for they were too well known before, but for the surest way of ci­tation, seeing my Lord Commissioner refused to take any sure course for citing them: which if he had done, they had not been cited in so publick a manner. Not but that they deserved citation per proclama▪ to be summoned by Proclamation, yet that manner was not resolved upon till other means were thought more difficile and not so sure. As for my Lord Com­missioners discharge to read the summonds in the Kirk of Edinburgh, they were read in sundry Kirks before the discharge was presented to the Magistra­tes. And what reason was there to stay citation of so [Page 53] haynous offenders to compeare before their ordinary judge? His Majesty had declared before, that no Sub­ject should be exeemed from censure. But how shall they be censured if they be not cited? Nor did the Commissioner offer to take another course. So it was evidently seen, their intent was to frustrat all citation.

They challenge them for their proceedings in the citation. First, because they proceeded against all chari­tie, which delighteth not in the discovery of mens naked­nesse, backbiteth not with the tongue, much lesse writeth a book against a brother. Iustice requireth that publick sins be rebuked publickly; they themselves laboured to frustrat all other manner of citation. Should usurp­ers oppressors, prophane and lewd men passe uncen­sured through want of citation. The welfare of the Kirk should be dearer to us then the reputation of se­ducers and undermyners. Sould not the house of God be purged of filth and dirt? Next, for breaking of order, in breaking the Apostles rule and act of Parliament. The a­postle it is true directeth young Timothy not to rebuke sharply an Elder, but to intreat him as a Father, mea­ning an elder in years, as appeareth by the oppositi­on of young men. The direction is for privat repre­hensions, but these that sin publickly or scandalously should be rebuked openly, whether they be elder or younger. The dregs of prophannesse are more sowre and stinking in old men then in young. But they have both elder & younger among them. So are there of the complainers, some younger, some elder. Their third estate is not impugned in all the lybell, howbeit their persons be made lyabell to publick citation and cen­sure, and so the act of Parliament not violated there­by [Page 54] But of that act we have spoken sufficiently alrea­die. Thirdly, for not proceeding according to any law­full forme, but specially against the order prescribed by acts of the generall Assemblies. March 1596. and April 1592. For the first it is not transgressed. For the lybell containeth speciall crimes sufficiently instructed and notorious, ut nulla tergi versatione celari possunt. Other crimes are subjoyned wherewith they were slande­red, which were to be verified by informations from the parts where the slander did first arise: of which some were proven, the rest lay over for lake of time, wherein if they please, an other Assembly will insist. It seemeth rather they think the lybell too speciall. Hinc illae lachrymae. That Assembly was a cor­rupt Assembly and began the rent of our Kirk. Yet their act beareth no more, but that all summonds containe a speciall cause and crime, and that none be summond super inquirendis. The lybell contained speciall causes, and none of them were summonded super inquirendis. As for the act 1582. ordaining that in processe of deprivation of Ministers there be a lybelled precept upon fourty dayes warn­ing, if they be within the Realme, sixty, if without, to be directed by the Kirk, and such Commissioners as elect and admit the persons complained upon, summoning them to compeare and answer upon the complaint, and incase of their absence at the first sum­monds, the second to be directed upon the like warn­ing, with certification if he faile, the lybell shall be admitted to probation, and he shall be holden pro con­fesso. That forme of proceeding was ordained for inferiour judicatories which sit at frequent diets. For [Page 55] it is ordained, that if he compeare not at the first cita­tion, he shall be summoned de novo with certificati­on. But the generall Assembly sitting but once in the year could not begin and end such a proceeding for the space of three year, if this order were to be keep­ed by them. Next, because that direction is for them who admit, but the generall Assembly doth not admit Ministers. Yea the persons summoned were never ad­mitted to their great benefices according to the order set down by the Assembly. Thirdly, that forme of proceeding presumeth that the person complained upon may be out of the Realme or within, but in the remotest part, and that they can not be cited by pub­lick Proclamation to compeare before inferior judges. But the decliners were summoned by Pro­clamation in the most eminent Kirks within the king­dome, to compeare before the generall Assembly, so that these who were within the countrey, or neer the borders, could not be ignorant of the citation. Fourthly, that forme was for faults in the office or lives of Ministers deserving deprivation, this for ci­tation of such as usurped jurisdiction and tyrannized over the whole Kirk, and were banded together in one common course against the established order and policie of our Kirk. Fifthly, the act it self permitteth appellation to the generall Assembly, if after the de­creit he finde himself wronged thereby. It is cleare then, the act concerneth only citation before inferior judicatories. Sixthly, diligence was used to publish the summonds, as soon as might be after the indi­ction of the Assembly, and had been execute sooner if the Commissioner had taken another course. How­soever, [Page 56] there was time sufficient; as appeared, in that the citation come to their knowledge, both those who were within, and those who were without the countrey. Citatio contumaciam judu­cere potest, si scientia citationis apprehenderit cita­tum, atque ita comperiatur malitiose aut dolose latitare. That the citation come to their knowledge, as well of these without as at home, is cleare by subscriving the declinatour, and compearance of their procurator before the Assembly, whereupon instruments were taken that their compearance did justifie the citation. The fourth challenge is, of proceeding against common equity, which admitteth summonds only by the authority of that judge before whom the delinquent is to compeare. But so it is that the summonds were directed by the authority of pretended Presbyteries for compearance before the ge­nerall Assembly. See their malapertnesse in calling the weekly meetings of Ministers pretended Presbyte­ries, slighting the order established with so great de­liberation by our Kirk, with consent and concurrence of the civill authority. But for answer to the chal­lenge. They know it hath been the continuall practise of our Kirk, that inferiour judicatories have cited delinquents to compeare before the superior, and ne­cessare it is so to do, because the generall Assembly sitteth not frequently, nor may not sit oftner accord­ing to the act of Parliament then once in the year, ex­cept prore nata. If every citation began at the Assem­bly for compearance at the next, delinquents might persist in their offences and perhaps escape all punish­ment. And as for the present case, there was danger in delaying to the citation of the Assembly.

[Page 57] They complaine, That reference of the complaint was made by the Presbyteries to the generall Assembly, the parties never being summoned to compeare before the Presbyterie, whereby either in presence of the partie, or in case of contumacie, the complaint might bee referred to the generall Assembly. The complaint was made up­on breach of the cautions for the most part, and could not be well tryed without the tryall of preten­ded Assemblies, whereupon the parties complained upon, would build most of their defences. There­fore the Presbyteries referred the tryall of the com­plaint to the generall Assembly, as the most able and undoubtedly competent Iudge, without citation be­fore themselves: and as matters stood for the present, they could doe none otherwise, without great distur­bance and interruption to bee made by their adhe­rents, and assistance of civill power. It was fit the complaint presented to the Presbyteries should be re­gistrat in their books, seeing it was the ground of their citation. Suppose there had been no complaint made to the Presbyteries, not only some, but all the Presbyteries in the Kingdome might have cited them to compeare before the generall Assembly: because they pretended they were Pastours of all the Kirks within their pretended Dyocies, and Moderatours of every Presbyterie within the Dyocie, and beside did many things in common to the prejudice of all the Kirks of the Realme by their voting in Parliament, sitting and tyrannizing in the high Commission, over­ruling Assemblies, keeping conventions of their own, and directing articles to Court, to the prejudice of the Kirk. What suppose then they had been cited not on­ly [Page 58] every one in their own pretended Dyocie, but all of them in all the Kirks in the Kingdome? seeing there was a common cause, and the persons com­plained upon, were a faction combined to the over­throw of the whole Kirk.

The fifth is, That the proceeding was against all de­cencie and respect due to men in their place, the said Bi­shops being persons in dignitie, and some of them of his Majesties most honourable privie Councel, known to be of blamelesse conversation, to have deserved well: that to be thus reviled and traduced, redoundeth to the reproach of the Church and Estate, and Gospel, whereof they are prea­chers.

So will notorious thieves standing in the pannell alledge boldly they are honest men. Their dignities are abominations. They are a reproach to the Kirk and Estate: they are ashamed of the Gospel, and the Gospell ashamed of them. If tyrants and oppressours may brag of their deserts, then may they also, that they have deserved well. And yet howbeit the pu­blick citation hath tended to their disgrace, the dis­grace was not intended by the citation, but tryall: howbeit disgrace followed upon the manner of the citation, because none other sufficient meane could be had: nay disgrace and contempt preceeded the ci­tation.

Lastly, they charge the Commissioners to the gene­rall Assembly their consciences, in the sight of God, as they must answer before his great and fearfull tribunall, if they suspect, or know not certainly according to the judge­ment of charitie, these whom they thus accuse to be free of these crimes, where with they were charged.

[Page 59] A bold and shamelesse out-cry: for the Commis­sioners are so farre from suspecting them to be free, that they rather beleeve them to be guiltie of the crimes layed to their charge respectivè, some of moe, some of fewer, and some of the most odious. Their cariage is so prophane, men of credit and account are reporters, & sometime their own familiars, & some of the offences laid to their charge, are committed in the very sight of the people. They ground the charge of their conscience upon this, That having lybelled the generall, they had to seek the specification theirof, as ap­peareth by their articles, and instructions sent abroad. The most and great offences were notorious and common to them all. For other personall faults there was loud slander, and fama clamosa. For these in re­spect of legall proceeding, witnesses behoved to bee cited, and inquisition to be made, which the Assem­bly since hath found sufficiently proven in sundrie, and would have found more, if time had served: for there was as loud slander for other crimes not yet brought in judgement.

They ask, If any man will think that the Commissio­ners at this Assembly, can be judge in their own cause: They alledge a reason out of the Canon law, that if the Pope be at variance with any man, he ought not to be judge him­self, but choose arbitratours; and some examples, to wit of Ludovicus Bavarus and all the estates of Germanie with him, pleading this nullitie against the sentence, and proceeding of Iohn 22. and his Councel; and of the Arch­bishop of Cullen, who in the year 1546. did plead the nul­litie of Pope Paul the third his Bull of excommunication, because he protested so soone as a lawfull Councel was open­ed, [Page 60] he would emplead the Pope as partie, being guiltie of many things censurable in the Councel.

Would not any man think our decliners to be great Readers, and well versed in histories? And yet they have borrowed all this stuffe out of the review of the Councel of Trent, concealing the book and chapter from whence. Wee know, that inferiour judges cannot be judges in their own cause. And therefore Gregorie upon this ground reproved justly Ianuarius Bishop, because hee excommunicated a nobleman Isidorus, for some injurie done to him, 23. quest. 4. inter querelas. And yet cap. Guilli­sarius. Silverius anathematized Guilisarius, because hee desired him to come peaceably to his Palace, to deal with him pro ecclesiasticis quibusdam dispo­sitionibus, for things disponed to the Kirk, but took him captive, and banished him. And 2. quest. 7. Si quis erga. If any was to complaine upon a Bi­shop, he is ordained to deal friendly with himself before he complaine to the Primat or any other judge, or else to bee excommunicat. The glosse upon this last chapter distinguisheth thus. If the in­jurie concerne the Prelate only or specially, he may not excommunicat for that injurie: but if it con­cerne the Kirk hee may. And the glosse upon dist. 63. cap. Salonitanae, maketh this cleare: If inju­ry concerne principally the Prelate, then he must forbear. But the generall Assembly is the supreme judge in causes ecclesiasticall: neither doth the As­sembly judge in their own cause, but Christ and his Churches, and concerning themselves, as members and persons representing the collective bodie. But [Page 61] of this wee have treated sufficiently before. It maketh nothing for them then, that if the Pope bee at variance with any man he must not be judge himself. Is there no more but variance betwixt them, and the Assembly? and they a party, some difference standing betwixt them and our Kirk, which must be taken up by arbitrators? intolerable presumption. Are the li­berties of Christs Kingdome, but the subject of some variance betwixt us and these usurpers? The glosse meaneth, that the Pope himself may not take mens possessions or goods upon a light opinion, that they belong to the Kirk, till the matter be decided. Non debet ipse esse judex & rem occupare. Glosse in Can. Con­suetudo. 16. q. 6. Neither are their examples to the purpose. For the Emperour Ludovicus Bavarus plea­ded that nullity against the sentence and proceeding of Iohn 22. and of his Councel, upon this ground; that the said Iohn pretended to have a plenitude of power over him and his Empyre, even in temporall matters, and did actually conspire against him and the lawes of the Empyre, and caused him to be pursued as an ene­mie, as the Reader may see in the review of the coun­cel of Trent. Hermannus Arch-bishop of Cullen being excommunicat by pope Paul the third, because he was upon the work of reformation of his Kirks, appealed from his sentence by writ, wherein he setteth down his reasons why hee did not acknowledge him as judge, because he had been a long time accused of heresie and idolatrie. Hee appealed from his sen­tence to a lawfull Councel of Germanie, wherein he would prosecute his plea against him as partie. Our decliners make our nationall Councel their partie. [Page 62] Non credo quod à sententia Concilij appelletur: quia con­cilium est loco senatus. 16. quest. 1. c. eccles. habet Sena­tum A quorum Senatorum sententia non appellatur ita nec a sententia Concilii, saith Antonius de Rosellis par. 3. cap. 21. The nationall Councel is the supreme Senat of the Kirk, from which as we may not appeal in a cause competent, so we may not cast or refuse the same.

They complaine, that the Authours of the late Prote­station were injurious to their place and authoritie in the Assembly, because they will grant neither Primat, Arch­bishop nor Bishop voice deliberative, nor decisive in the ge­nerall Assembly, unlesse they be elected by the Presbyteries. The act above-mentioned made Anno 1597. by their own procurement, ordained that Ministers & Barrons should be directed with commission from presbyte­ries. We have had no other act since for the choise of Commissioners to the generall Assembly. In the As­sembly holden at Montrose anno 1600, when the cau­tions were concluded, It was statute and ordained, that none of them that shall have vote in Parliament, shall come as Commissioners to the Generall Assembly, or have vote in the same in any time coming, unlesse he be autho­rized with commission from his own Presbyterie to that effect. This act was not annulled by their own pre­tended Assembly holden at Glasgow; nor if it had, should it have been of any force: seeing it was a null and pretended Assembly. As for Councels of old, where Primats, Archbishops, and Bishops had place and voice, they are not the right paterne to be fol­lowed by us, as we have already answered. Nor yet do they make any thing for them. For these of old were Primats, Archbishops, and Bishops in office [Page 63] after mans invention allowed for the time. We ac­knowledge none such in our Kirk. Their consecra­tion to the office was without the knowledge or con­sent of our Kirk, and is laid to their charge in the complaint given in against them. A knavish prat. And yet, forsooth, they talk as if they were Primats, Archbishops and Bishops in office, like those of old. Risum teneatis amici? But what suppose they were ac­knowledged to be such in office? should they disdaine commission from Presbyteries? Paul and Barnabas were sent from the brethren at Antioch to the Coun­cell which was holden at Ierusalem act. [...]5.

They alledge, that this doth enforce the nullity of an Assembly, if the Moderator and Praesident for matters of doctrine and discipline shall be neither the Primat, Arch­bishop nor Bishop, but who by plurality of Presbyters and Lay-mens voices shall be elected, which happily may be one of the inferior clergie, or a lay-person. For this their Presidentship, they alledge canons of ancient Coun­cels, and custome of old, both in other nations and our own not yet restrained by any municipall law. Acts of parliament either of late or of old have not set down any order for moderation of generall Assem­blies or nationall Councels. Nor do we alledge the act of Parliament 1592. ratifying the liberty of ge­nerall Assemblies, provinciall Synods, and Presby­teries for free election of their Moderators. Yet there is nothing in that act against free election, or for Pre­sidentship of Bishops. We had no Ministers primats, or Bishops, either in stile or in office at that time. Yea the power granted before to Bishops in that trouble­some year 1584. and soon after quite abolished, was [Page 64] then granted by that act to Presbyters, as the right spirituall office-bearers in the Kirk. And as for acts of ancient Councels, we passe them as no paterns to us, nor pertinent for them. For we have no such Bi­shops, primats or Metropolitans, as were of old, as hath been already answered. And as impertinent it is, to alledge that this presidentship is so intrinsecally in­herent in them as they are Bishops, that hoc ipso that they are Bishops, they are Presidents of all Assem­blies of the clergie: As the Chancelour of the king­dome hath place in Councell and Session not by any act or statute, but hoc ipso that he is Chancelour. For we know no difference betwixt the office of a Bi­shop and a Presbyter to be made by the word of God. Neither do we acknowledge our fourteen for­loppen Ministers for Bishops in office, so much as by the constitutions of our Kirk. Yea when we had Su­perintendents and Bishops, yet the Moderator of the generall Assembly was freely chosen, and never a Bishop chosen but once. It was ordained in the book of policie chap. 7. that in all Assemblies a Moderator shall bee chosen by common consent of the whole brethren conveened.

This freedome our Assemblies ever had since the re­formation, till Spotswod sometime pretended primat began to usurp the place of the Moderator in their pretended Assembly holden anno 1616. Suppose the act of Parliament 1592 did restraine their authority, yet say they, the restraint is restored by act of Parliament 1606. and 1609. and all acts prejudiciall to their juris­diction abrogat. But that act of Parliament anno 1606. concerning the restitution of the state of Bishops can [Page 65] not be understood to concerne the spirituall office, but only their temporall state, jurisdiction, privi­ledges and preheminences belonging thereto. For by the act of Parliament 1597. when vote in Parliament was granted to Ministers provided to Prelacies, their office in the spirituall policy and government of the Kirk was remitted to the Kings Majestie to be advi­sed, consulted, and agreed upon by his Majestie with the generall Assembly, at such times as his Majestie should think expedient to treat with them thereupon. But there past no agreement before the act of Parlia­ment 1606. but rather cautions to restraine them from all preheminence or power in the spirituall po­licie and government. And in the act of Parliament 1612. which ratified the act of Glasgow 1610. the re­mit of the estats in the Parliament 1597. was menti­oned, and it was declared, that all doubtfull and con­troverted points concerning the jurisdiction, disci­pline, and policie foresaid, was not determined till that Assembly holden 1610. How then could the act of restitution anno 1606. be understood of restituti­on to their old papall preheminence and jurisdiction in the policie and government of the Kirk? Next, if they were restored to all their old preeminences in the spirituall jurisdiction and policie by the act 1606. what needed they any Assembly afterward to grant them some preheminence in ordination and jurisdi­ction? Why stepped not the pretended Primat to the place of Moderatorship at their own pretended As­semblies holden anno 1606. 1608. 1610. without election? Thirdly, how could the Parliament re­store them to any spirituall jurisdiction or prehemi­nence, [Page 66] who never had it at any time before? For they had not been Bishops in office at any time before, that they needed restitution. Will they say, because they had the titles of the benefice or Bishoprick, the Par­liament might put them in possession of the spirituall jurisdiction, and enter them into the office; then the Papists may be moved more justly to call them Parli­amentarie Bishops, then the English in the begin­ning of Queen Elizabeths raigne, who because of some rites and customes omitted at their inaugurati­on, sought the ratification of the Parliament for sup­ply, as Sanderus de schismate Anglicano lib. 3. report­eth, and therefore were called parliamentary Bishops. Hinc nomen illis impositum, ut parliamentarij episcopi di­cerentur. In their printed Declinatour they alledge a little after in the same section, that they have received their authority not from the Parliament, but from Christ, from whom they have received the spirituall oversight of the clergie under their charge. This clause is not to be found in the Declinatour presented be­fore the Assembly in writ, but insteed thereof two lines bloted out. Now it seemeth they are somewhat bolder after they have consulted with their brethren in England, who now mantaine that their authority is not derived from the Prince. But suppose the episco­pall authority were institute by Christ, which is false; what calling had they to exerce that authority? They had none from the Kirk. And if not from the Par­liament, then none at all. And yet before they said their authority was restored to them by act of Par­liament 1606. which seemeth to import a contradi­ction: And suppose, from the Parliament, as good as [Page 67] not at all. As for the act of Parliament 1609. con­cerning the Commissariats, it reacheth no further then the former. Their consent to both these acts in Parliament and sundry other, is one of the points of the complaint given in against them. Nay they procured them, and yet are not ashamed to alledge them, howbeit to small purpose. Being destitute of acts of Parliament or Assembly, they argue from their presidentship in Synods, that one of them in ab­sence of the Metropolitan should preside in the gene­rall Assembly, rather then one of the inferiour cler­gie. It is true, by an act of Assembly holden at Glas­gow anno 1610. those who were stiled Bishops in re­spect of their benefices, were constitute Moderators of the diocesan Synods, and that act was ratified in Parliament anno 1612. But that ratification was upon supposition, that the Assembly was free and lawfull, and was desirous of that ratification: none of which are they able to make good. Next when we had Bi­shops and Superintendents Moderators of Synods, the generall Assembly choosed others then Superin­tendents or Bishops to moderat. By the cautions at Montrose it was provided, that the Minister voter in Parliament should not arrogat to himself any further preheminence or jurisdiction then any of the rest of their brethren, under the paine of deprivation. Where it was alledged falsly in the falsified act of that null and pretended Assembly holden in December anno 1606. that they should be Moderators of Synods, yet to make men beleeve that they were moderat and sought no further, it was provided in that same falsi­fied act, That the Moderator of the generall Assembly be [Page 68] chosen by the voices of the said Assembly, certaine leets beeing first nominated and propounded freely, as use hath been in times by-past. So, by their own grant, it fol­loweth not that one of the Bishops moderating the diocesan Synod should preside in the generall As­sembly in absence of the Metropolitan himself, whose name was not so much as heard of in their own pretended Assemblies.

They answer to that which is alledged against the office of a Bishop out of the act of Assembly holden anno 1580. where it was declared, that it had no ground or warrand out of the Scriptures: First, that if the corruption of the time shall be regarded, the autho­rity of this Assembly might be no lesse regarded then that of Glasgow 1610. This is transcendent impudencie. Were the times corrupt? Were not all the heads of the book of discipline concluded after free reasoning in many Assemblies preceeding? Was not the electi­on of Commissioners free? Was not liberty granted to any man that was willing to oppone? Was there any rent or division in our Kirk in those times? Was not the same act ratified in the Assembly following? Was not the confession of Faith subscrived by per­sons of all ranks soon after, and Presbyteries erected? did not our kirk adhear to that act still after? So, if that time was corrupt, the purest and best times following were corrupt. Was ever that act contradicted by any other act since that time to this houre? But observe, whiles without all shame they would empaire the au­thority of that Assembly, they suffer of their own accord their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. to fall to the ground. Next, they say, [Page 69] it is ordinare for prior acts of Assemblies and Parliaments to give place to posterior. But we mantaine there was no act followed to repeale the former. If they will alledge the act of Glasgow 1610. First, that Assembly is not to be numbred among the Assemblies of our Kirk, and was declared null at this last Assembly up­on grounds unanswerable. Next, that same corrupt Assembly did not determine or declare the office of a Bishop to have any warrand out of the word, nor did they restore that office as it was brought in by mans invention, and used of old, but only made Synods and Presbyteries obnoxious in ordination, depriva­tion, excommunication, and some other points, to these who were then stiled Bishops in respect of their benefice, and not Bishops in office, yet not without limitations and upon assurance, that they should be lyable to the tryall and censure of the generall Assem­bly. But they alledge the Assembly holden anno 1586, where it was found that the name of a Bishop hath a speci­all function annexed to it by the word of God, that it was lawfull to the generall Assembly to admit a Bishop pre­sented to a benefice by the King with power to visite ad­mit and deprive Ministers, to be Moderators of Presby­teries, and to be subject only to the censure of the generall Assembly. Neither was the office of a diocesan Bi­shop declared by this Assembly to have any ground or warrand in the word, or that any might be conse­crat thereafter to such an office invented by man. Yea that Assembly declared in the sixth Session, that there are foure ordinare office-bearers set down to us in the Scriptures, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons, and that the name of Bishop ought not to [Page 70] be taken as it hath been in time of Papistrie, but is common to all Pastors. In the tenth and eleuenth Session, they declare that by the name of Bishop they meane only such a Bishop, as is described by the Apostle. They declare that the name of Bishop hath a speciall charge and function annexed to it by the word of God, the same that the Pastor hath. They declared then that Bishop and Pastor are all one, and that a divine or apostolicall Bishop is the Pastor of a particulare flock, and hath not a generall charge over a whole diocie. It is true, they assented at that time that it was lawfull to admit a Pastor, Bishop or Mini­ster presented to a benefice by the Kings Majestie, with power to visite admit &c. as said is. But then consider, this Assembly was the first which was hol­den after the desolation made anno 1584. and 1585. and consisted not only of none subscribing Ministers, but also of many who had subscribed in that houre of darknesse as Bishop Adamson afterward called these two years of desolation preceeding: And yet did not allow more to him who was admitted to the Bishop­rick then to any other Minister to whom they gave the like power, and with the same restrictions which were prescribed to others, and only till further order were taken: as that in visitation of the bounds limited to him, he proceed by advise of the Synod, and such as they shall appoint to him; that in receiving presentations and giving collations he shall proceed by the advice and voice of the Presbyterie, and cer­taine Assessors to be joyned with him, at the least the most part of the Presbyterie and Assessors, till fur­ther order may be taken; that if he admit or deprive [Page 71] without consent of the most part of the Presbyterie it shall be a sufficient cause of deprivation, and the deed shall be null. So this power and preheminence was not in respect of any Episcopall office, but by commission from the Assembly, as was granted to o­ther Ministers, and during the time prescribed by the Assembly, and only till further order were taken. And indeed this shadow of preheminence granted first at a conference in Haly-rude-house not long before, by some courting and chief subscribing Ministers, & now again at this Assembly, endured not long. For in the Assembly holden in Iune 1587. the admission of one to the Bishop-rick of Glasgow by the brethren of the west, was declared unlawfull, neither agreeing with the word of God nor custome of the Kirk, howbeit it was only to the temporality, and these brethren were enjoyned with all possible diligence to see that admission annulled, that slander may be removed from the Kirk, as they would answer upon their obe­dience. At the same Assembly M ^r. Robert Pont related to the Assembly, that a presentation to the Bishoprick of Cathnesse was offered to him, for some losse he had sustained; and desired the judgement of the Assem­bly, if he might enjoy the rent with a safe conscience, seeing he was willing to serve at the Kirk of Dornoch, and to take the charge of visitation at the pleasure and direction of the Assembly. But in the letter sent to his Majestie the Assembly declared that M ^r. Robert Pont was already a Bishop according to the doctrine of S ^t. Paul, and worthy of a competent living in that regarde. But as for that corrupt estate or office of those who were called Bishops in former times, they [Page 72] finde it not agreable with the word of God, and that it hath been damned in diverse Assemblies; neither is the said M ^r. Robert willing to accept the Bishop-rick in that manner. In the same Assembly it was ordain­ed, that all Pastors of whatsoever sort shall be sub­ject to the try all and censure of their Presbyteries and Synods for their life and doctrine, as well as of the generall Assemblies; That such as passe degrees in schools subscribe the confession of Faith. In the in­structions for the Commissioners appointed to at­tend upon the King and Parliament, they were injoy­ned to admit nothing prejudiciall to the discipline of the Kirk, as it was concluded according to the word of God by the generall Assemblies preceeding the 1584. year, so far as lay in their power. In the Par­liament holden the moneth of Iuly following, the temporality of benefices was annexed to the crown, and it was thought meet and expedient that his High­nesse shall have recourse to his own patrimonie, that is the proper rent of the crown disponed of old to the Clergie and Monasteries. All and sundry lands, Lordships, Barronies, Castles, Towres, &c. Pertai­ning to Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Pryo­resses or whatsoever other Prelat were annexed and united to the crown. In the Assembly holden anno 1588. Ministers were enjoyned to deale with Noble­men and Gentlemen for subscribing the confession of Faith. In a word the servants of God never rested till the wound, which the Kirk had received anno 1584. and 1585. was perfectly cured, and not so much remained as the skar thereof. Yea that any Minister should be appointed a visitour at any time [Page 73] where Presbyteries were constitute, was not thought expedient, as was declared by the Assembly 1590.

As for that act of Montrose, let them answer to it, say they, that have their calling by that Commission. We professe that we have a lawfull calling, by the election of the Clergie, who are of the chapter of our Cathedrals, and consecration of Bishops, with his Majesties consent and approbation, according to the lowable laws and ancient cu­stome of this Kingdome and Kirk in ancient times.

Because they see they are not able to answer for the breach of the cautions; concluded with consent of his Majestie, and the Ministers aspiring to Prelacies, they professe plainly they regard not these cautions, and that they have not their calling by that commissi­on at Montrose. The Minister commissioner to vote in Parliament, was tyed by the act at Montrose, not to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Kirk, but to behave himself as other Ministers not voters in Par­liament. The plotters for Episcopacie consented and seemed willing he should be so bounded and restrain­ed, glade of any beginning. Now when they arrogat to themselves the power and office of a diocesan Bi­shop and are catched in the snare, they refuse to stand to that act. So they bewrey that they had even then a purpose to deceive and betray the Kirk of GOD. and because they are not able to answer, let them an­swer, say they, that have their calling by that commis­sion. They said in the former section, that posterior act derogat from the prior, now they make prior acts to derogat from the posterior. For they professe that they have their calling by election of the chapter and con­secration of Bishpos according to the lawes and cu­stomes [Page 74] of ancient times. They can not deny, but chapters of Cathedrals and election of Bishops by chapters were condemned by our Kirk as Popish, and the office of a diocesan Bishop or consecration to the office to have been damned and detested by our Kirk. They can not so much as alledge a warrand of any of their own pretended Assemblies for their election by chapters, or this their consecration. Three of their own number went to England after their own preten­ded Assembly holden at Glasgow, and without their knowledge or consent, were consecrated Bishops by their brethren the English Bishops, returned and con­secrated the rest of their fellows. But for the breach of these cautions, manner of election, and the usurp­ation of that office by consecration, that is, for their treacherous dealing, they are cited to answer be­fore the Assembly, and are worthy of condigne cen­sures and punishment, deprivation, note of infamie, and excommunication, the three punishments to be inflicted respectivè for transgressing of the cautions. Have they not by their own profession in this section confessed they are guilty of the most haynous offen­ces laide to their charge in the lybell? We passe that which they adde concerning their homage for their temporalities, and acknowledging of the Kings su­premacie, as not pertinent to the present purpose, and the complaint taken out of Cyprian, as not be­longing to usurpers.

Lastly, they conclude, that it is manifest by the pre­misses, how absurde it is, and contrarie to all reason and practise of the Christian Kirk, that Archbishops and Bi­shops shall be judged by Presbyters, much more by a mixed [Page 75] meeting of Presbyters and Laikes conveening without lawfull authority from the Kirk.

By the Kirk it seemeth they meane the Bishops. They cite some old Councels, declaring and deter­mining how and by whom Archbishops and Bishops are to be judged. But it is manifest by our refutation of the premisses, that this Assembly consisted of Commissioners both Ministers and ruling Elders, whom they call Lay-men, chosen according to the order of our Kirk, and that meetings of Clergie and Lay-men have been not only in the Apostles times, but also in times of Popery, and that we are not to be directed by the Canons of these Councels which they cite, but by the established order and Canons of our own reformed Kirk, which are agreeable with the practise of the Apostolicall and best reformed Kirks in our time. Semper petunt principium. They take that for granted which is denyed. That they are Archbishops and Bishops, It is not only denyed but they are summoned to answer for usurping such of­fices.

They pretend, that none of them will decline the law­full tryall of any competent judicatory in the kingdome, e­specially of a generall Assembly lawfully constitute, or his Majesties Commissioner, or Laicks having authority and commission from soveraigne authority.

They will be sure to have such a judge as shall ac­quite them or none at all; An Assembly like to their own pretended Assemblies. Seeing the whole pack of them are complained upon, and for crimes com­mon to them all, where shall we finde other Bishops and Metropolitans to sit in judgement upon them? [Page 76] What needeth any further answere, but that it is ma­nifest by sundry passages of this their Declinator that they will not, and because guilty, dare not, stand to the judgement of a generall Assembly constitut as the last was according to the established order and practise of our Kirks and therefore are justly cut off as rotten members from the body.

After the reasons of their Declinator and refusall of the judgement of the Assembly, they come to their protests.

First, for the reasons foresaid, and for discharge of their duty to God, to his Kirk, and to our sacred Sove­raigne, least by their silence they betray the Kirks right, and their own consciences, that they in their own names, and in behalf of the kirk of Scotland, are forced to protest that this Assembly be repute, and holden null in law, and that no Kirk-man be holden to apeare, assist, aprove it. And therefore that no letter, petition, subscription, interloqui­tor, certification, admonition, or other act whatsoever, pro­ceeding from the said Assembly, or any member thereof, shall be any way prejudiciall to the Religion and confession of Faith by act of Parliament established, nor to the Kirk, or any member thereof, nor to the jurisdiction, liberties, priviledges rents, benefices, possessions of the same, acts of generall Assembly, Councell or Parliament in favours thereof, nor to the three Estates of the kingdome, or to any of them, nor to themselves or any of them in their persons or Estats, authority, jurisdiction, dignity, rents, benefices; reputation and good name, But that all such acts and deeds are, and shall be repute unjust, illegall and null in them­selves, with all that hath followed or may follow there­upon.

[Page 77] If their reasons alledged be found frivolous, as they were by the Assembly, and are cleared so to be by this answer, their protest is not worth a fig. They protest in name of the Kirk of Scotland, when as they will not acknowledge her Commissioners freely chosen, nor her Assembly constitute according to the established order, nor any other Assembly constitute according to the said order, but will have this As­sembly, and consequently this Kirk, to be their party, and yet will protest, profest as they are, in name and behalf of this Kirk. Affrayed are they that some thing should be done prejudiciall to Religion, and the con­fession of Faith established by Parliament, meaning that which is extant in the acts of Parliament, but passe by the confession sworn to, and subscribed by Subjects of all ranks throughout the whole Realme, and by themselves. We acknowledge not acts of null and pretended Assemblies. We interpret not every act of Councell or Parliament procured, or assented to by them, or made in their favours, to be made in favours of the Kirk. The Kirk her self must be judge of the fauours bestowed on her. If their au­thority, jurisdiction, dignity, rents, benefices, repu­tation, good name &c. Be prejudiciall to the autho­rity, jurisdiction, liberties, and the spirituall welfaire of the Kirk, good reason the estate of the Kirk be preferred to the estate of some few factious men. There may be three estates without the bastard estate of Bishops, Abbots, Pryors erected in time of Po­pish darknesse.

They protest next, if the Assembly call in question, discusse, and condemne things, not only in themselves [Page 78] lawfull and warrandable, but also defined and determined by acts of generall Assemblies and Parliaments, and in practise accordingly, to the disgrace and prejudice of the re­formed Religion, authority of the laws and liberties of the Kirk and kingdome, weakning his Majesties authority, disgraceing the profession and practise he holdeth in the communion of the Kirk where he liveth, and branding of reformed Kirks with the foule aspersion of Idolatry and su­perstition: that what shall be done in this kinde, may not redound to the disgrace or disadvantage of the reformed Religion, nor be repute a deed of the Kirk of Scotland.

The Assembly hath condemned nothing lawfull and warrandably defined and determined before in Assembly or Parliament and practised accordingly, they intended not to weaken his Majesties authority, disgrace his practise and profession, or brand any re­formed Kirks with soule aspersions, but only to re­forme the abuses and corruptions entred in their own Kirk, and to oppose to what more was likely to have entred with the receiving the Service book and book of Canons, without relation to any other Kirk. If any disgrace redound to others, it is but per accidens, and it may be retorted, that their Canons, and constitu­tions are intended for the disgrace of our Kirk, which we do not affirme. Next, they must distinguish be­twixt a free Kirkand a Kirk lying in thraldome. But the decliners would have us to refuse nothing which is received in any other reformed Kirk, if the same be imposed, lest they be disgraced by our refusall: which were to make up a fine hotch-potch.

They protest, that they embrace and hold the Religi­on presently professed according to the confession of Faith [Page 79] ratified in Parliament anno 1567. as the true Religion, and detest all contrary errours.

But they make no account nor mention of that con­fession where contrary errous are specified or desig­ned, and it appeareth for no other cause, but that they perceive the episcopall government and other inno­vations which they were to introduce to be abjured by that confession, which is a tacite yeelding to the true meaning and sense delivered by the last Assem­bly in their Declaration.

They protest, that the Episcopall government is law­full and necessary, and that the same is not opposed for any defect or fault in the government or governours, but by the malice and craft of the devill envying the successe of that government these many yeares bypast.

It hath been condemned by our Kirk as unlawfull and hurtfull, yet they dare contradict and protest it to be lawfull and necessary. That government which is not warranded by the word, and overthroweth the joynt government of Pastors and Elders, which is warranded by the word can not but be faul­tie. If the government be faulty, the governours can not but be faulty in governing. The devill could not envy the successe of so faulty a government as hath brought in the Antichrist to sit in the temple of God. Suppose there were no fault in the govern­ment but that it were lawfull and necessary, but what meanes have they come by it? Or what moderation have they keeped after their usurping of it? Intrarunt ut vulpes, regnarunt ut Leanes. But how prove they the successe of their government to have been such as the devill could not but envy it?

[Page 80] By the planting of Kirks with able and learned Mini­nisters, recovering of the Kirk rents, helping of Ministers stipends, preventing jarres betwixt the King and the Kirk which in former time did dangerously infest the same, keep­ing the people in peace and obedience, and suppresing of Poprie, which was never at so low an ebbe as before the sturres.

They have planted many Kirks with unsufficient or scandalous Ministers, or corrupters of Religion and perverters of the people. They have recovered great rents to themselves, and would recover the rents of the rest of the Prelacies to build up the crow­nests again. They have procured by the moyen they had, augmentation of stipends to tie Ministers to de­pendance upon them, or to tie them to their fat sti­pends, that no alteration in Religion should loose their grip: and yet no Kirks worse provided then such as belong to their own benefices they have hindered the augmentation of stipends to such Ministers as would not dance to their pyping. They have raised jarres betwixt the King and the Kirk, and in the Kirk it self, that they might obtaine the more easily their intent. But how they keeped peace betwixt the King and the people may be seen by their instructions sent up to court anno 1609. the many threatning letters sent down from court, and proclamations from time to time, and most of all by their dealing at this pre­sent. If there were no other to keep the people in peace and obedience, there would be little peace or obedience in the countrey. Their favour borne to Papists processed or to be processed, their familiari­ty with them more then common, and employment [Page 81] of them may let us see, that if Poprie be suppressed, it is not suppressed by them, but by other meanes, as the powerfull preaching of the word, or the clear­ing of controversies wherewith our Kirk was troub­led or by the authority of men in place and credite in the country. But we doubt that Popry is at so low an ebbe, nor will it be seen till the light of this pre­sent reformation discover them. Sure we are, to bring in Popry peice and peice, was not the meane to sup­presse Poprie.

They protest, that seeing these who for scrouple of conscience did mislike the service book, Canons or high Commission which were apprehended or given forth to be the cause of the trouble of this Kirk, have now received satisfaction, and his Majestie is graciously pleased to forget and forgive all offences by past in these sturres, that all the Subjects may live in peace and love; laying aside en­vie, hatred and bitternesse: and if any refuse so to doe, that they bear the blame, and be thought the cause of the troubles may ensue, and that the same be not imputed to them or any of them, who desire nothing more nor to live in peace and concord with all men, under his Majesties obedience, who have committed nothing against the laws of the Kingdome and Kirk, which may give anie just cause of offence, and who are so farre from wishing anie harme to anie man in his person or estate, notwithstanding all the injuries and indignities they have suffered, that for quenching this present combustion; they could be con­tent after clearing their innocencie, not only to lay down their bishoprick at this Majesties feet, but also, if it so pleased God to lay down their lives, and become a sacri­fice for this attonement.

[Page 82] We answer, Others for scrouple of conscience mislike the service book, canons, or high Commission. But they are not in the number of these who make any scrouple: How can we who mislike, like them to be Ministers, far lesse governours in our Kirk, who do not mislike them: what satisfaction can we receive by the discharge of these books, seeing other books more corrupt may be imposed afterwards, seeing the mat­ter is not condemned, but avouched to be a mean to beat out idolatrie and superstition, seeing they them­selves were not taken order with for their corrupt disposition, and intend to obtrud them, and to raise persecution for them. They may doe in and by the Councel, as much as may trouble Ministers and pro­fessours, howbeit they sit not in the Court of high Commission. The books were but the instrumentall cause of the troubles and sturres, but they were the principall cause, authours and procurers of the trou­bles. The five articles, which have wrought much disquietnesse these twentie years by-past, were not quit, but the practise left free whereby division could not but bee intertained. Can Religion be setled in peace, or religion be preserved in puritie their go­vernment continuing? they would be loath to lay down their Bishopricks at his Majesties feet, if they were not confident to take them up again. Yet they will not doe it, till their innocencie be cleared, that is, they will never doe it: for their innocencie will never be cleared. If you will beleeve them, they could be content like Ionas to be cast in the sea to pro­cure a calme. They have lived like Salamanders in the fire of combustion, and now on a sudden would [Page 83] quench the fire with their bloud. Will they lay down but their Bishopricks at the feet of the Kirke, as they ought to doe, and that will quench the combustion: But they will lay them down only where they are sure to receive them againe.

They protest deeply, that they use not this declinatour and protestation out of fear of any guiltinesse, whereof any of them is conscious to himself, but of conscience of their duetie to God and his Church, being most willing everie one of them to undergo the most lawfull and exact triall of any competent judicatorie in the Kingdome, or of his Ma­jesties Commissioner foresaid. But the generall Assembly cannot be denyed to be the most competent judicato­rie in the Kingdome. They beseech my Lord Commissi­oner to interceed with his Majestie, for appointing a free & lawfull generall Assembly, such as Gods word, the practise of the primitive Kirk, and laws of the Kingdome doth pre­scribe, with all convenient speed, that they or any other of the Clergie may be heard to answer all accusations, abide tryall for clearing of their innocencie, or receiving con­digne punishment. But it is made evident alreadie, that they meane by the primitive Kirk, not the primitive that is Apostolicall, as appeareth by the Canons of some ancient councels, which are no rule to us. Nor can we have any other Bishops to judge upon them, seeing we have none but such as are complained upon and summoned. The laws of the Kingdome have not prescribed the order and constitution of our generall Assemblies, nor is it pertinent to them. All the while they request not an Assembly to be appointed, as the Kirk within this Kingdome hath prescribed and ob­served from time to time: are these men to be suffered [Page 84] in this Kirk, that will not submit themselves to the tryall of the supreme judicatorie constitute accor­ding to the acts and constitutions of our Kirk? So it is not only this, but all other Assemblies constitute ac­cording to the prescribed order of the Kirk that they shun.

They protest, That this protestation in respect of their lawfull absence, may be received in their own name, and in name of the Kirk of Scotland, that shall adhere to the said protestation, at the hands of Doctour Robert Ham­miltoun Minister at Glasfurde, to whom they gave power and mandat to present the same in or at the said Assembly &c. They say not to the said Assembly, or with reverence to the said Assembly. The vanity of their protesting in name of the Kirk of Scotland, and their adherents we have laide open before. What cause can they pretend for lawfull absence. Some of them were in Glasgow and Hammiltoun, and might have presented their Declinatour and Protestation themselves, if their hauty spirits would have suffered them to compeare before Presbyters, to whom they were terrible in former times.

Least their deep Protestations should make men beleeve that they are the most innocent men that may be, you shall have here subjoyned good Reader the crimes and offences which were laide to their charge, and were either so notorious that they could not be denyed, or clearly proven before the Assembly.

After that, such as were aspired to Prelacies had obtained in the generall Assembly by the Kings assi­stance, and not without great opposition of the better and most judicious sort of the Ministerie, that Mini­sters [Page 85] might vote in Parliament, it was agreed unto by themselves, that they should be nominate and recom­mended by the Kirk to his Majestie, who should have vote in Parliament, and whom his Majestie should choose, they should be admitted by their Synods, where they were resident. But they regarded neither the recommendation of the general Assembly nor ad­mission by their Synods. As for cautions to keep him that shall have vote in Parliament from corruption, howbeeit they agreed unto them for the present, yet afterward their actions bewrayed, they had no in­tent to keep them. They voted in Parliament with­out lawfull entry or admission, the Kirk disassenting and repining, or without inserting of the cautions, which were agreed upon to keep the Ministers voters in Parliament from corruption. Whereas it was pro­vided by the cautions that he shall not presume at any time to propone in Parliament, Councell or conven­tion any thing in name of the Kirk, without expresse warrand and direction of the Kirk, but such as he shall answer to be for the well of the Kirk, under the paine of deposition from his office, nor keep silence, or consent to any thing that may bee prejudiciall to the liberty and well of the Kirk, under the same paine. And yet have they voted and given assent to many acts in Parliament prejudiciall to the li­berties of the Kirk, almost in every Parliament which hath been holden since they began to take the place to vote in Parliament. Whereas the Minister voter was bound at every generall Assembly to give an account anent the discharge of his commission since the Assembly preceeding, and to submit him­self [Page 86] to their censure, and stand to their determination without any appellation, and to seek and obtaine ra­tification of his doings at the said Assembly under the paine of infamie and excommunication, yet since they began to vote in Parliament, the liberty of hold­ing generall Assemblies yearly was taken from us, and when we had any of their own framing, yet made they no account of their proceedings in Parliament, nor sought ratification of their proceedings in Parli­ament, Councell or convention. Whereas he was bound to content himself with so much of the bene­fice which shall be given him by his Majestie as might not prejudge any other Minister within his benefice or without, yet they bestow waste the emoluments of the Kirk to mantaine their riotousesse and ambiti­on, which might sustaine many Pastors. Whereas he was bound not to delapidat his benefice set or make any disposition thereof without speciall consent of his Majestie and the generall Assembly, yet it is found that they had delapidared their benefices. Whereas he was bound by the cautions to attend faithfully upon his own particular flock, and there anent to be subject to the tryall and censure of his own Presbyterie and Provinciall Assembly, as any other Minister nor bea­ring commission to vote in Parliament, they have ne­glected all Ministeriall duty in any particular congre­gation, and deserted their particular flock. Whereas it was provided that in administration of discipline, collation of benefices, visitation and other points of Ecclesiasticall government, he shall not usurp nor ac­claime to himself any power or jurisdiction farther then any of the rest of the brethren, They notwith­standing [Page 87] have usurped power and jurisdiction over their brethren of the Ministrie, & the people in or out of the high Commission, to admit, suspend, deprive, fine, confine, Pastors or Professors at their pleasure. Whereas it was provided that in Presbyteries Pro­vinciall and generall Assemblies, he shall behave him­self in all things, and be subject to their censure as any other brother of the Ministery, they notwithstanding over rule Synods and Presbyteries and generall As­semblies when they are convocat. Whereas it was ordained that none of these that shall have vote in Parliament shall come as Commissioners to any ge­nerall Assembly, or have vote in the same in any time comming, except he be authorized with commission from his own Presbyterie to that effect, they have notwithstanding taken place in their late pretended Assemblies, without commission from any Presby­terie, and have moderated and over ruled as they pleased. Whereas there are certaine constitutions and acts of our Kirk for the right constitution of ge­nerall Assemblies, yet have they holden these few Assemblies not constitute according to the constitu­tions of our Kirk, but after their own device, and for acts to be made for the advancement of their course, which Assemblies are found and declared to be null in this last Assembly for such reasons as are expres­sed in the acts of the last Assembly now extant in print. Whereas the office of adiocesan Bishop hath been condemned by our Kirk as having no warrand in the word of God, and never since hath been al­lowed to this houre, no not in their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow: Three of their number [Page 88] notwithstanding went to England without the dire­ction, knowledge or consent of any Assembly, law­full or pretended, received consecration to the office of a Bishop, returned and consecrated the rest of their fellows to that office damned by the acts of our Kirk. Whereas the court of high Commission was not er­rected by consent of the estates or good liking of any Assembly, yet they accepted the power of that court, and thereby have tyrrannized over Ministers and o­ther Subjects. They have also undertaken civill and temporall jurisdictions, titles, and dignities, as to beare offices of estate, to sit in Councell, Excequer, Session contrare to the acts of our Kirk. They relaxe excommunicate Papists when they please. They have interdyted morning and evening prayers, when they thought they were injured by the people. They have falsified the acts of their own pretended Synods They have vitiated interlyned or deleted acts and sentences of Presbyteries, Synods and Assemblies. Incest and Adultery hath fallen forth by their licence for privat marriages. They have refused to admit Ministers unlesse they first take on the order of dea­cons. They exacted unlawfull oathes of intrants, and thereupon debarred the most qualified and obtruded the most scandalous upon congregations. They have taught Popery and Arminianisme, and advanced such to the Ministerie as were infected with the same Hereticall and erroneous doctrine. They brought in novations in the worship of God by a pretended As­sembly, and now at last intends to alter the whole frame of Religion, of doctrine with errour, or wor­ship with superstition, or discipline with tyrannie by [Page 89] the service book, book of canons, book of ordinati­on, without so much as the colour of any pretended Assembly. Beside they have detained or interverted sowms of money dedicat to pious uses as colledges & relief of captives. Beside all these offences, notorious of themselves, or proven before the Assemblie, the lousenesse and prophanity of their lives was made known, how they have been given to excessive drink­ing, filthy dancing, prophane speaches, open pro­phanation, of the Sabbath by their journeys abroad, or drinking carding or diceing at home, usuall play­ing at cards and dice, excessive gaining, contempt of all publick ordinances and family exercises, briberie, simonie, unhonest dealing, abusing of their vassals, sclandering of the Kirk, and stirring up authority a­gainst the subjects with their lies and calumnies. They are slandered also for other grosser crimes, but time served not for sufficient triall. Because they were not able to abide the triall: they have declined, and pro­tested against the last Assembly. For which offence only they deserve excommunication, according to the act of the generall Assembly holden in April 1582.

Because they complaine in their declinator, that obedient and worthy Ministers have been removed from their places by the usurped authority of the ta­ble and Presbyteries, notwithstanding they had de­clined and appealed from their judgement, you shall see good Reader what worth was in these Ministers, and what just reason there was for removing of them.

It hath been sufficientlie proven and made good against some of these deposed Ministers, to wit, M ^r. [Page 90] David Mitchell Minister in Edinburgh, M ^r Alexan­der Gladstones Minister in S ^t. Andrews, commonlie cal­led the Archdean of S ^t. Andrews, M ^r. William Wi­shart Minister at Leeth, M ^r. Iohn Crightoun Minister at Pasley, M ^r. Thomas Foster Minister at Melrose, M ^r. Ro­berts Hammiltouns Ministers at Lesmahago & Glasfurd; and others of their sort, that they have taught points of Poperie and Arminianisme, conditionall election, the power of free-will, resistibility to effectuall grace, the extent of Christs death and merite to the damned in hell as well as to the blessed in heaven, Christ com­ming into the world clauso virginis utero, auricular confession, papall absolution, That the Pope is not the Antichrist, That the Kirk of Rome is the true Kirk, That reconciliation with the Kirk of Rome is easie, That the Kirk of Rome erres not in fundamentalibus, nor differeth from reformed Kirks in the same, That there is no more difference betwixt us and them then betwixt the green and blew colours of Iustinians armie, or that it was a mouthfull of moon-shine, that the formall cause of our justification standeth in our inherent righteousnesse, That Christs body is pre­sent in the sacrament circumscriptivè and change the sacrament of the supper into a sacrifice, the table into an altar, and Ministers into Priests, That GOD was the cause of Isacks lie for not punishing his father A­braham, That there was possibility to fulfill the law, That predestination was a doctrine newly hatched in hell justly to be deleted out of Gods word, That the excrements of the Romish religion, and Iesuits learn­ing was better then the quintessence of our Religion, although it were squeesed in a limbeck, That absolute active obedience is to be given to all the command­ments [Page 91] just or unjust of Princes, That they have railed against our reformers and reformation, and affirmed that the cheif reformers of our Religion were but deformers, and had thrown out better things then they had brought in, diminished the necessity and utility of preaching, commended the service book and book of canons, and affirmed that by the faith of the Kirk of Scotland, divers parts of Gods true wor­ship were abjured; That they have cursed their own congregation and threatned to concurre to their de­struction. They have called their people Iackanapes, Babbouns, perjured Bitches, madde Dogges, and that it were more lawfull to pray for such as had lyen 500. years in hell then for them. That they neglected the exercise of discipline, hindered the delating or punishment of offenders, baptized children of noto­rious Papists, defrauded the poore of their right and mantenance allowed unto them, received bribes for saving scandalous persons from publick censure, ba­ptized children in their beds without prayer before or after, interverted and applyed to their own use moneys collected for relief of some Ministers in the Palatinat or some captives under the Turk. That they deserted their flocks, prophaned the Sabbath-day by all sorts of loose carriage, That they were given to drinking, prophane speaches and pastimes, swear­ing, fighting, brawling with their Parishoners, that some of them went so drunke to the Pulpet, that they forgote their Text: That some of them swore, they would rather renounce God, than bee Puritans; They judged the authour of the pra­ctise of piety to be damned in hell, because by his book he had made many Puritane Ladies, That when [Page 92] they were delated for such offences, they contemned the authority of the Presbyteries, relying upon the favour of the Prelats, and have declined this last Assembly.

Because in their Declinatour they alledge that too many of the Commissioners members of the last Assembly are guiltie of many personall faults and enormities, which in charity they forebeare to ex­presse in this their Declinatour, you have here sub­joyned good Reader, a Catalogue of the Commis­sioners members of the last Assembly whereby you may perceive how frequent the Assembly was, and of what sort of persons it did consist. We have not read nor remembred a more solemne Assembly of our Kirk since the entry of Christian Religion, let be since the reformation, nor moe more able to cleare themselves of any faults or enormities can be laide to their charge.